Abstract
This article explores collective identity as a useful theoretical framework for understanding social and developmental processes that occur in youth programs. Through narrative analysis of past participant interviews (n = 21) from an after-school theater program, known as The SOURCE, it was found that participants very clearly describe a collective “member” identity. Aspects of the collective identity become psychological assets that participants are able to recall at later points in their lives—in their future roles as college roommates, parents, teachers, nurses, and so on. Findings suggest that collaboratively and purposefully crafting a collective identity provides youth programs with a useful way to cultivate meaningful results of participation for current members as well as provide an underlying identity framework that past participants can build on in new social arenas as emerging adults.
Overview
Practitioners and researchers who work in youth development and engage with youth-serving programs are keenly aware of the profound impact that participation in such programs can have on the lives of youth. These programs not only tend to offer engaging and meaningful activities but also fill psychological needs for support, compassion, mentoring, and relationship development (Hirsch, Deutsch, & DuBois, 2011; Larson, 2000; Weis & Fine, 2000). However, a key challenge still persists for the field of youth development: how to fully understand the mechanisms and processes occurring in these programs (Catalano, Berglund, Ryan, Lonczak, & Hawkins, 2004). This question is usually raised in discussions of replicating or “scaling up” programs that have been evaluated as successful and effective. Through the recent work of developmental psychologists, prevention scientists, educational researchers, and others, we have improved as a field at evaluating programs, documenting outcomes, and linking specific outcomes to specific programs. Yet, we face challenges of understanding how outcomes are being achieved and how they may persist longitudinally in more ecological terms (Catalano et al., 2004; Larson, 2000). This article argues that social psychology, particularly the framework of collective identity (Ashmore, Deaux, & McLaughlin-Volpe, 2004), presents a useful way of understanding how youth programs influence the individual development of the youth who participate in them, at the time of participation and their future development.
For this article, I focus on highlighting the aspects of collective identity that are directly related to the field of youth development and use empirical data from a qualitative study of a peer-education teen-theater program to illustrate and support this argument. As I engaged in research with the program, known as The SOURCE, I began to hear a broader narration of an overarching collectively produced identity of “SOURCE member.” I use this finding to argue that collective identity and youth development are related to one another in key ways. I conclude by outlining the theoretical, methodological, and empirical opportunities that arise when these two literatures and perspectives are combined.
Literature Review
Youth programs present an opportunity to fill youth’s idle time and after-school hours with engaging activities that have been shown to improve health and well-being and reduce the likelihood of risky behavior (Durlak & Weissberg, 2010; Larson, 2000; Roth & Brooks-Gunn, 2003). Eccles and Gootman (2002) synthesize findings from researchers and practitioners to distill eight key elements of youth programs that promote positive youth development (PYD). These eight factors include aspects such as physical safety, supportive relationships, opportunities to belong, opportunities for skill building, and positive social norms. Moreover, they emphasize that these are not simply characteristics of the setting but represent aspects of the interactions youth have within the settings. These findings have important overlap with the field of social psychology and research on collective identity and collective action, more specifically. Many of the factors outlined by Eccles and Gootman have also been found to influence the salience of collective identities (Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Iyer, Jetten, Tsivrikos, Postmes, & Haslam, 2009), general attachment to groups (Drury & Reicher, 1999), experiences of collective action (Drury & Reicher, 2000), and modifications of behaviors to reflect group norms (Drury & Reicher, 2005). In addition, the emphasis of individual interactions with settings and groups is a core concern of social psychology. While some scholars have begun to more closely investigate group-level processes and individual-level change in the context of youth programs (see Deutsch, Wiggins, Henneberger, & Lawrence, 2013), there remains to be a concerted focus on how youth programs, in designing their programming to achieve the characteristics such as those outlined by Eccles and Gootman, are simultaneously crafting collectives and influencing identity development through activities and participation. An inquiry into the role of effective group identities (group identity can also result in negative psychological experiences, for example, Major & O’Brien, 2005) can help improve the effectiveness of youth programs and, presumably, the outcomes for their participants.
Collective identity provides a way of understanding group-level processes and how they are simultaneously composed of individual-level identity concerns and highly influential on individual identity development. Collective identity can be defined as an individual’s cognitive, moral, and emotional connection with a broader community, category, practice, or institution. It is a perception of shared status or relation . . . and it is distinct from personal identities, though it may form part of a personal identity. (Polletta & Jasper, 2001, p. 285)
Collective identities arrive from self-categorization and recognition of group membership. The mere act of belonging to groups can lead to improved health and well-being (Jetten, Haslam, & Branscombe, 2009). Groups are able to provide individuals with social support (Cohen & Wills, 1985) and a shared identity (Haslam, O’Brien, Jetten, Vormedal, & Penna, 2005) that influences day-to-day functioning. There is widespread empirical evidence of the importance of social support during adolescence (Bokhorst, Sumter, & Westenberg, 2010; Chu & Saucier, 2010; Malecki & Demaray, 2002; Rueger, Malecki, & Demaray, 2010; Stanton-Salazar & Spina, 2005). Theories of collective identity would suggest that participation in a youth program results in a version of self-categorization whereby the youth categorizes themselves as a member of that program and thus engages with the thoughts, behaviors, and ideas associated with the program and its members. While the level and style of engagement may differ across individual participants, the act of positioning, claiming, and defining membership is what is psychologically important (Ashmore et al., 2004). Although it is conceptualized in individual terms (how an individual relates to a group), it is still an identity that is different from personal identities because it is “explicitly connected to a group of people outside the self” (Ashmore et al., 2004, p. 82).
Collective identity is particularly well suited for use in tandem with PYD (Catalano et al., 2004; Larson, 2000; Lerner, Almerigi, Theokas, & Lerner, 2005), which looks specifically at youth’s long-term developmental outcomes related to social skills—such as engaged citizenship—that result from program participation. A core argument of PYD is that the absence of problems is not necessarily the presence of healthy development, thus challenging the field to focus as much on programs and interventions that promote healthy youth development as well as those that prevent risky behavior (Guerra & Bradshaw, 2008; Lerner, 2005; Lerner et al., 2005). Showing that youth programs are effective at only reducing risky behaviors is no longer the primary focus. Researchers are being challenged to explain how youth programs work, what aspects ultimately lead to healthy and engaged adults and to delineate the aspects of settings that lead to asset development for youth (Eccles, Early, Fraser, Belansky, & McCarthy, 1997). How are programs promoting development, and how do we define “effective” programs? In addition, how are programs contributing to longer term developmental outcomes such as initiative (Larson, 2000), civic engagement (Flanagan & Faison, 2001), and contribution (Lerner et al., 2005) into emerging adulthood? These are persistent questions in the field.
Scholars in social psychology have linked collective identity with a variety of outcomes that are relevant to youth development. For example, similar to findings on youth civic engagement development (Flanagan & Faison, 2001; Watts & Flanagan, 2007; Youniss & Hart, 2005), Drury and Reicher (1999) find that social identity and collective action can lead to feelings of empowerment within political contexts. Haslam, Jetten, Postmes, and Haslam (2009) draw links between group identity, personal development, and positive psychological outcomes arguing that “a sense of shared identity underpins the capacity for members of disadvantaged groups to work together to buffer themselves from the negative consequences of their circumstances” (p. 12).
Investigating group processes with regard to youth programs is an avenue that has been somewhat explored in the literature (Eccles & Barber, 1999; Youniss, Yates, & Su, 1997). For example, Youniss et al. (1997) find that a social orientation toward a set of group norms that were more in line with adult norms led to increased community service participation and decreased drug usage. This study signaled the importance of looking at external relationships and ways that youth interact with other peers, adults, and society to understand behavior rather than focusing solely on individual factors. This work highlights the influence of groups and group norms but does not look at aspects of identity informed by group participation. Eccles and Barber (1999) conduct a study that looked more closely at adolescents’ identities and their prosocial activities and risky behaviors. They found links between adolescent identities (as loosely categorized into five types), peer groups, the types of activities adolescents chose to be involved in, and outcomes related to risky behavior or successful development. Similarly, Jones and Deutsch (2012) combine a psychological needs approach (Deci & Ryan, 2000) with stage-environment fit theory (Eccles, Lord, & Midgley, 1991) to understand how after-school programs may serve as group-based settings that meet specific developmental tasks across pre-, early-, and midadolescence. What remains to be more clearly investigated is what happens when there is an explicit group identity that is collaboratively created, discussed, and engaged with by the participants. Integrating the collective identity perspective into PYD and program evaluation fields will lead to innovative research in youth studies while injecting new lines of inquiry into collective identity work. For example, much of the social-psychological work on collective identity has stemmed from research on collective action as it relates to political movements. In her work on the development of civic engagement, Flanagan (2003) considers similar questions regarding the “developmental roots” of such engagement and the role of organizational membership in fostering that development. Collective identity may be a mechanism through which extracurricular organizations foster civic engagement in young adults by allowing them to bond and connect with their peers and develop a sense of belonging to a community (Flanagan, 2003).
Such work is important to highlight because it suggests ways that we can move from understanding settings as mere crucibles for youth development to exploring how identity development can occur in conjunction with youth actively shaping their settings. Youth organizing for school reform provides a useful example of this perspective, and Kirshner (2007) identifies a number of ways that participation in youth activism leads to broader learning and development outcomes. For example, such activities result in a focus on the group rather than on the individual, an important developmental task in the transition to young adulthood. Involvement can also lead to feelings of empowerment, increased self-efficacy, and increased school motivation (Mediratta et al., 2008). Bridging research and evaluation, Fox et al. (2010) examine how the theory of critical youth engagement, cultivated through the method of youth participatory action research (YPAR), can lead to evidence of increased positive outcomes, particularly for urban youth. Indeed, PYD is moving in this direction through Lerner’s suggestion that the 5C’s of PYD can ultimately lead to a sixth “C” of contribution to one’s environment. The field of collective identity can learn from this developmental focus; likewise, PYD can build on ideas of contribution by incorporating youth voice, agency, activity, and participation in the cocreation of their environments.
Summary
Existing literature shows that development of and engagement with collective identity(ies) are important psychological processes that influence how we understand ourselves and interact with our social world. Youth development in general, and PYD in specific, is concerned with the socioemotional development of youth and the influence of activities on long-term developmental outcomes. Thus, there is considerable overlap between the primary endeavors of both fields. In the following empirical example, I build on these linkages to suggest that there are broader developmental claims—above and beyond civic engagement and contribution—that can be investigated by understanding youth development through a lens of collective identity. To conclude, I propose that collective identity is an important mechanism by which supportive environments of effective youth programs are crafted as well as an underutilized psychological theory for understanding how experiences in a youth program are relevant to thoughts, behaviors, and actions in other contexts of youth’s lives.
Method
The data for this article come from a retrospective study of young adults’ experiences in a peer sex-education teen-theater program in Central Florida. The program, known as The SOURCE, has existed for more than 20 years and served a range of high school students interested in theater and sex-education activism in Florida. At any given time, there are usually 20 to 30 regular participants attending The SOURCE each season (semester). Participants are drawn from area high schools and tend to be middle to upper class. The SOURCE participants have the opportunity to attend weekly meetings and act in and produce plays for the surrounding counties. The weekly meetings blend improvisational acting, group discussion, and sex education. The plays, written by the director and revised by each cast, address issues such as safe sex, peer pressure, drug use, eating disorders, and bullying. Some participants opt to only attend meetings or work on a play, while others participate in all activities. KT Curran has served as the director of The SOURCE for more than 20 years.
Many areas of psychology, sociology, anthropology, and education have investigated the impact of community and youth theater programs on the personal development of the participants/actors and their influence within the community (Chapman, 2000; Gallagher, 2007; Guhathakurta, 2006; Mattingly, 2001; Wright, 2006). The body of research is rich with evidence that theater, in particular, allows an opportunity for personal expression and creative reaction to the conditions in which its participants live. Thus, while the findings of this study speak most directly to arts-based programs, the underlying processes that occur are relevant for any youth program that wants to understand its impact and the role of its group in the lives of youth, as I will argue below.
Sample and Procedures
Participants in the study ranged in age from 18 to 34 years, and all participated in the program for 1 to 4 years during their time in high school. Data for the study consisted of interviews (n = 21), a survey (n = 64), and visual identity maps (n = 9). For this article, I focus primarily on the interview data (for mapping data, see Futch & Fine, 2013). Participants were recruited via snowball sampling and by working directly with the director of the program to identify a diverse set of participants. Special attention was paid to recruiting participants who participated in different years, varied on demographics (race, gender, and sexual orientation), and who engaged in the program to varying degrees. Each interview lasted approximately 1 hour and was guided by a semistructured protocol that included questions that asked the participant to think retrospectively about his or her time in The SOURCE and recall key experiences, to talk about aspects of The SOURCE experience that may still influence his or her present life, and to describe how he or she view The SOURCE activities in wider social contexts (e.g., the current community). Interviews were transcribed by the author and imported into Dedoose for coding.
Regarding issues of reliability and validity, several practices common for improving quality in qualitative research were followed (Tracy, 2010). First, sections of the initial interviews were transcribed by research assistants, but all interviews were retranscribed and corrected by the author with special attention paid to fully capture the delivery of the narratives (including pauses, stops and starts, and shifts in tone) and accuracy of the statements (Poland, 1995). Second, the author engaged in numerous reflexive exercises (see Futch, 2011, for vignettes) to better understand her relationship with the participants, data, and analysis (Richardson & St. Pierre, 2005). Third, the author presented preliminary findings, thematic codes, and quotes to a working group of graduate students and faculty who use mixed and qualitative methods and focus on youth development. Finally, the author also presented the findings to an outside expert in collective identity for their feedback on interpretation (known as peer checking, see Creswell, 2012).
Analysis
Do you think there’s something different or unique about the kids that end up at SOURCE?
Leah
1
(female, age 22): Yeah. There’s like a definite characteristic I feel like that all the kids have. And I think it’s just like a common—I don’t know what it is but every person I met in SOURCE, whether they’re completely different than me or like similar than me I’ve always had no problem connecting with, having fun with, you know, talking to about anything [mmhmm].
2
And it’s funny like, something happens. I don’t really know. Cause like Carrie and I are polar opposites [mmhmm] and we became like best friends in SOURCE. You know, like I don’t think that would have happened in a normal high school day. You know? [Yeah]. Something else happens. So.
What is this “something else” that happens—the “definite characteristic” of SOURCE members? The impetus for this study arose from hearing the prevalence of statements like Leah’s and descriptions of what it meant to be a SOURCE member and the realization that these ideas might best be understood as an example of a collective identity. While the theoretical question of the study relates to the use of collective identity for the field of youth studies, the empirical question for this analysis was whether the “SOURCE member” talk represented a collective identity and, if so, how it might relate to longitudinal behavior and identity development. Thus, the overall aim being to show how combining these literatures may be mutually generative for both fields.
Two underlying assumptions of collective identity inform this inquiry. First, collective identities are formed through the process of self-categorization (Ashmore et al., 2004; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987)—being able to state, “I am a member of this group.” The act of categorization results in feelings of connectedness and belonging with the group and a recognition of what makes the group different from others. This is qualitatively different from mere participation. Rather, it represents a possible result of participation: that some individuals will come to identify with the group, such that their feelings of connectedness translate into feeling as though the group has become a part of their self. Not everyone who participates will identify, but for this analysis, I am interested in what happens when they do identify with the group. This relates to the second assumption of collective identity: Group identification leads to behaviors that serve the interest of the group, follow group norms, and ultimately result in members wanting to substantiate the group in the rest of the world (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). This behavior is thus reinforcing: It continues to build connectedness and reinforce the identity, which leads to greater adherence to group norms and a desire to serve the interests of the group, and so on. In addition, with an active focus on this salient group identity, the stigma associated with other groups that the individual may categorically belong to (race, class, “teenager”) becomes less important and less threatening to his or her overall sense of self (Tajfel, 1978).
Therefore, this analysis must ask two main questions. First, were there SOURCE participants who developed an identification with the group and, if so, how did they describe this? Is there evidence of the SOURCE (group) becoming integrated into the self (individual)? Second, what evidence is there of membership in the group influencing behavior? Do SOURCE members describe acting in ways consistent with group norms, and do they feel compelled to recreate these conditions elsewhere in the world? If these conditions exist, then it serves the argument that the experience of identifying with a group may be one process through which participation in a group such as The SOURCE can influence one’s developing sense of self and one’s future engagement with the world.
The analysis was an iterative process that began by identifying talk related to being a “SOURCE member.” Coding focused on identifying statements that addressed group-level activities, group processes, and group functioning, and how one felt to be a part of The SOURCE. Statements were coded as markers of collective identity when they conveyed information about activities that occurred in the group setting or reference to group processes (the excerpts below represent exemplars of these codes). The next phase of analysis consisted of multiple readings of each transcript, “listening” (Sorsoli & Tolman, 2008) for two different types of stories related to collective identity: narratives of “me as a group member” and narratives of “the story of my group.” Ashmore et al. (2004) explain that such an approach allows for understanding the “internally represented story that the person has developed regarding the self and the social category in question” (p. 96). The final phase examined how participants report their behavior and actions since their participation and whether it appears that the group norms remained salient even outside of The SOURCE. Each phase is elaborated below.
Findings
Defining the “SOURCE-Member” Identity
The qualities and characteristics of what it meant to be a SOURCE member were conveyed across all of the participant interviews. Participants narrated an awareness that being a SOURCE member meant being open, listening to their peers, trying to understand their perspective, and trying (though not always succeeding) to be nonjudgmental. In general, participants who entered the space expected (and could expect to experience) a diversity of life experiences; openness; comfort; dedication to acting, activism, or both; to share personal experiences; and to engage with activism in the form of peer education. In return, fellow members and KT, the director, would provide health and sex education, acting opportunities and practice, advice, comfort, nonjudgment, confidentiality, recognition and reciprocation, exposure to new ideas, and dialogue. This contributed to a shared sense of belonging as Beth, at age 18, explains, I always just felt so relieved when I was at SOURCE. Just, oh, none of these people are judging me. They are all here for the same reason.
Interestingly, this perceived group-level lack of judgment allowed for individual-level identity exploration and expression. Liza, 25 years of age, stated, I think that, that school, and probably my home life and probably a lot of people’s home life where you feel like, um, you go home and you want—everyone wants acceptance from their parents—and so, you’re constantly trying to be who they want you to be [mmhmm]. Um, opposed to being who you are. And The SOURCE is just like, be who you are and, and the acceptance will be there. Um, instead of, yeah trying to be accepted by being who somebody else wants you to be I guess. [Right]. Simply enough.
The openness and respect components of SOURCE membership were defined at the start of each meeting and by having each participant sign a confidentiality agreement that outlined the terms of participation in the group and provided group-level regulation (Youniss et al., 1997) of behavior as well as a way to conceptualize the grounds of membership. Collective identities are based on the perception of shared characteristics (Ashmore et al., 2004) and, across interview data with members who participated at completely separate times, the themes of acceptance, openness, tolerance, and understanding were highlighted as key markers of what it meant to be a member in The SOURCE.
Moreover, this identity seems actively chosen by the youth participants. In American culture more broadly, the ascribed identity of “teenager” is a collective identity that does not have such elements of agency. Some participants engaged in delineating what set the SOURCE-member identity apart from general ideas about teenagers and their treatment in society:
I think more and more and more children, kids, teenagers are just—they feel estranged and there’s this push to be an individual, you know, figure out who you are, what you want and what your needs are . . . When you bring people in a community or a group situation like the SOURCE, automatically you just have energies swirling and human beings just coming together in some kind of common interest . . . Everyone’s together and they’re so happy, smiling from ear to ear, they’re just so happy to be a part of something and it doesn’t matter what it is, it could be anything really, but then how lucky we are to have it be something as cool as SOURCE.
It’s just like a bunch of really spirited, like, kids that are interested and, you know, want to do something cool and, and KT like gives us that space, and you know, treated us with respect and like actually talked to us like we were people, you know, which I think a lot of teachers or people in the teacher roles don’t always do. So that’s why it’s so awesome.
Part of the process of self-categorization involves recognizing differences between what one is and is not. One analytic clue for teasing out the collective identity of The SOURCE was to listen in these stories for ways that participants juxtaposed other group identities with their discussion of The SOURCE to better define it. The collective identity of SOURCE member was closely related to these other identities (“teenager”) yet different enough to provide a new perspective that allowed a reconceptualization of what those identities meant. When Leah “realize[s] that it [the world] can be changed with like our generation” she is describing how her understanding of her individual self and her collective generation has been expanded based on participation in The SOURCE. Her group membership in The SOURCE expanded her understanding of her group membership as “teenager” because it was similar-enough-to but distinct-enough-from that identity to allow for reflection.
Next, I listened for stories of “me as a group member” that showed individual relationships to the group and their reflection on how this developed over time (Ashmore et al., 2004). What emerged was a common narrative arc (depicted below): Many participants constructed a story of their participation that began with walking through the door of the physical SOURCE space, feeling excited by the different types of people in the room, sharing experiences through dialogue or improvisational exercises, learning about the perspectives and experiences of others, and describing themselves as becoming more accepting of other people.
I think SOURCE um showed me that you really don’t understand until someone—it happens to you. Like, people are in such different circumstances and walks of life and I just think being judgmental is just not accepted in SOURCE, and I think that carried on with me as well.
These stories can also include reflections on how membership in the group plays into the current reality of the storyteller as well as their thoughts on the future (Ashmore et al., 2004). In her interview, Elizabeth, aged 31 years, used metaphors of pathways and “seeds” that grew with her to explain the impact of The SOURCE: I think as a teenager what it did was open me up more, to possibilities that might not have been opened had I not, well, I know would not have happened had I not gone to SOURCE. That’s really huge. Which I think has then sort of set me on the path of always trying to learn how to be more open . . . it just felt like it was a seed that then led me on these paths . . .
“Acting” in the Interest of the Group
The next step of analysis was to understand how participants perceived and described the group and how it influenced their behaviors. When listening to the participant narratives for stories of the group, a few different themes emerged. They focused on the physical space of The SOURCE, the role of peers, and the shared common goal of educating others. For this article, I focus primarily on the creation of a shared collaborative goal of peer education because this was an explicit part of what defines The SOURCE for many members. Understanding one of the overarching goals of what brought this diverse group of people into The SOURCE was helpful in delineating the story of the group and in showing how the participants recognized group norms and wanted to substantiate the group in other parts of their social worlds.
A common theme across the participant interviews was the goal of educating their peers about situations they or their friends might face. The SOURCE members recognized that their role of performer was able to reach their peers in a way that adults often could not.
Once I was involved in a show I felt like I had all this responsibility, I had not only had to you know do my role in the production, but I also had to . . . bring something to the audience that—I had to bring knowledge and a message, and so that was much more exciting than the actual performance, the fact that we’re able to share something.
Membership in The SOURCE not only came with the responsibility to the self and the audience, as described above, but also involved a broader sense of social responsibility brought about the by public performance of educational plays.
This organization is very essential for that, for giving information. Kids may not learn from it, they may. If they can take away one thing that the SOURCE is trying to give them as far as info and education it’s a good thing, it’s an accomplishment.
He continues, I got into this group shortly before I lost my virginity . . . so, becoming sexually active, I came, I went in with a sense of responsibility of what I needed to do as far as protection of myself and protection of the sexual partner and I’ve been taking that with me ever since which . . . What I picked up from this group is what I believe helped me survive.
Shawn concludes his story by talking about how the acceptance and openness he learned in The SOURCE combined with the impulse for education have stayed relevant in his life—in his personal dealings with counseling his nieces to his professional life as a health professional who works to keep his patients safe and informed.
Combined with the increased awareness of social responsibility, this story provides a representation of The SOURCE as a group that played a role in educating members of the community about their health and important social issues. The SOURCE has an interesting timeline: It began at the height of the AIDS epidemic and has persisted into the days of abstinence-only education, an awareness of global reproductive rights, and renewed debate over abortion access. Across the narratives of members, from those in the earliest cohorts (such as Shawn and Elizabeth) to those just graduating, the impetus to educate peers was steadfast. Despite different members, a changing social climate, and a rotating repertoire of plays, the essence of the group as a vehicle for peer education was consistent across all narratives.
These quotes help support the argument that the collective identity of SOURCE member, despite being a temporary experience based on participation in a specific program at a specific time, becomes psychologically relevant throughout the participants’ personal development. Peer education is just one example. Other participants told stories in which they felt compelled to speak out against bullies in their cafeteria, lobbied for better sex education in their schools, and, in their current work, tried to create a similar accepting environment in their classroom. The consistent story of “me as a group member” was one of point-in-time contribution to the setting and present-day awareness of how that influenced their current perspectives and actions.
Analysis Summary
The above analysis represents only one illustration of how The SOURCE experience can begin to be understood through a lens of collective identity. As Ashmore et al. (2004) note, the field of collective identity is vast and this brief analysis represents only one facet of the concept (a focus on narrative). What is clear is that the “something” that happened, the shared feelings that brought the members together, was at least in part related to the sense that they belonged to a group that was different from other groups. It is still unclear whether it was the specific type of activity (theater and arts engagement) that encouraged the creation of the collective identity. Regardless, key features of what appears to have helped the creation of the identity—an atmosphere of acceptance and activities of peer education—are elements that are transferable to many types of programs.
Discussion: The Promise of Collective Identity
What can an understanding of The SOURCE in these terms of collective identity help us understand about the processes and effectiveness of youth programs? Social psychologist Kay Deaux (1991) reminds us that “beyond the question of how identities are defined is the question of the meaning associated with an identity” (p. 83, emphasis added). While there are clear definitions (with slight degrees of variation) of what a SOURCE member is, participants also narrated the broader personal, interpersonal, and social consequences of what it meant to be a “SOURCE member.” Despite an ever changing collaborative of teens, SOURCE participants narrated the development of a shared collective identity—one that is premised on openness, responsibility, nonjudgment, and authenticity. This identity may be temporally limited but it is highly valuable: It serves a specific function in the moment but has long-term psychological consequences. Members left The SOURCE with an identity that became incorporated into their own concept of selfhood (Haslam et al., 2009) and remained influential in their emerging adulthood years (for more extensive analysis, see Futch, 2011). In the moment, the shared collective identity provided a way of providing social support, scaffolding discussions, and guiding behavior. In the longer term, the actual tasks engaged in while creating this identity—performance, dialogue, acting, peer education (what Vygotsky, 1978, would call sociocultural activity)—offered ways of engaging differently with self, peers, and the broader community.
Across both types of stories explored in the “Findings” section, those of individual membership in the group and those of the group in general, what emerged was an elaboration of a collectively constructed common bond, brought out through experiences of connection and relationship, encouraged through the vehicle of peer education, and protected by a shared social contract. The SOURCE provided an opportunity for “structured voluntary activity” (Larson, 2000) that engaged youth in a meaningful activity and focused their attention on a goal, in this case the production of a play for peers. That these activities are influencing identity development should not be overlooked as it stands to be an equally compelling and important result of participation. Identity is a central focus of adolescence (Erikson, 1994), and identifying the collective group processes that encouraged positive identity development in this context was helpful in understanding why the experience resonated so strongly with these participants. If we understand identity development as “the link between self and society” (Hammack, 2008, p. 224), then such programs may be ideal sites for understanding the link between development, collective identity, and how youth come to see themselves as part of communities and society. Further inquiry into the processes of cultivating such collective identities would be very useful for youth programs as they consider their impact, effectiveness, process, and areas for improvement.
Limitations and Future Directions
It is important to note several limitations of the method. First, the sampling may be only representative of participants who had a positive experience in The SOURCE. This inquiry was focused on understanding the meaningful and pervasive aspects of the program experience for participants, but those with negative experiences may not be adequately represented. Second, this study relies on retrospective data. Thus, the ability to speak directly to adolescent outcomes is highly limited. The data are more appropriate for understanding how past participants construct the meaning of their experiences and how it is still relevant in their young adulthood. In addition, the analysis interprets the data in light of a new theoretical framework than one originally used to conceptualize the research questions. It would be useful in the future to more directly ask questions about what it means to be a member and have participants explain more specific characteristics of how they perceived the group. Finally, the stories analyzed are only one way of understanding collective identity. Ashmore et al. (2004) present the narrative method as simply one approach among many for investigating collective identity. Other aspects of collective identity, such as evaluation, attachment, and behavior, may be better measured with scales or observations. The narrative approach, however, represents an underutilized method for conceptualizing collective identity within the discipline of psychology (Ashmore et al., 2004).
Conclusion
Under what conditions might the pairing of PYD and collective identity spur innovative methodologies and compelling research questions that drive the advancement of both fields? Collective identity and PYD have two key features in common—they both consider the individual development of the person in interaction with the environment and/or social condition to be equally as important as the extent to which individuals and settings are mutually informed and reconstituted through this interaction. When brought together, new inquiries can arise. Youth organizing for educational justice becomes an opportunity to look at structural and historic conditions surrounding collective identity and action (see Su, 2007). The growing interest of collective identity researchers in the qualities of leadership can inform work on youth group dynamics and youth leadership development. Recent social psychology findings on collective action, resistance, and empowerment (Drury & Reicher, 2000, 2005; Haslam & Reicher, 2011; Reicher, 2004) as it relates to group activities and collective identities may be very useful for understanding not only the development of youth civic engagement (Flanagan, 2003; Kirshner, 2007; Su, 2009) but also the broader development of initiative (Larson, 2000) and contribution (Lerner, 2005). While a concise definition of collective identity is still lacking, what is needed to advance the concept is a multidimensional analysis (Ashmore et al., 2004) not unlike the promising work on settings and ecologies of youth development. Future work in youth development that could also benefit our understanding of collective identity might seek to understand to what extent are collective identities constructed in and through different types of group activities (in addition to the arts-based activities explored in this study)? How does the public identity of the group differ from youth’s actual experiences and narratives of the group identity (such as what “teenagers” are capable of)? Is the group identity imposed on youth participants, or are they working to collaboratively create and redefine it? These questions, which arise from the mutual ties in both fields, would provide conceptual clarity to collective identity as well as an advancement in our understanding of processes occurring in youth programs.
Ultimately, collective identity provides a lens for recognizing that within youth programs, there are group processes at play that are contributing to the current experiences of youth participants while becoming ingrained in their psychological conceptions of self and the ways they participate in the world. Collective identity while admittedly very temporary for youth programs (vs. the same phenomenon with regard to other social identities such as gender, race, sexuality, etc.) gives the field the language to begin to articulate the psychological importance of what is happening in these programs as well as understanding and recognizing that such processes can be encouraged through specific activities (improvisational acting, sharing, peer education, etc.). Youth programs provide an opportunity to grow, learn, and connect with peers, adults, and communities (Christens & Dolan, 2010; Durlak & Weissberg, 2010; Hirsch et al., 2011; Oden, 1995; Weis & Fine, 2000). Collective identity work informed by PYD not only gives researchers and practitioners an opportunity to more fully understand what youth actually get out of each program but may also help us design programs that are more purposefully enriching and engaging because they are taking seriously the work of identity development as it occurs within such collectives.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Shaun Wiley, Nancy Deutsch, Michelle Fine, and the reviewers for their feedback on earlier draft. She would also like to thank KT Curran and participants of The SOURCE for sharing their experiences.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The author received funding for the research from the Leslie Glass Foundation as well as a Social Sciences Dissertation Fellowship from The Graduate Center, City University of New York.