Abstract
This study is part of a larger Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR) project engaging youth of color (YOC; aged 16–24 years) in a planning a multilevel health promotion campaign for a large safety net hospital. Analyses focus on youths’ conceptualizations of antiracism, and their recommendations on how to facilitate an intentionally antiracist YPAR. We answer the following questions: (a) How do YOC engaged in a YPAR project conceptualize and define antiracism? and (b) How do youth and adult allies conceptualize an antiracist YPAR project and what strategies do they use and/or recommend to this end? We employed instrumental case study methods and thematic analyses to code project data sources. Findings indicate that youths’ definitions of antiracism include elevating marginalized voices, actively resisting racism, incorporating an intersectional approach, and examining privilege, power, and positionality. YPAR members recommended strategies for creating an antiracist YPAR including prioritizing people of color in YPAR processes, creating space to acknowledge and process positionality and racialized dynamics, and engaging in ongoing education and dialogue. Moreover, both youth members and adult allies recognized that antiracist YPAR projects require time and resources to remain consistently antiracist, and such a goal can only be accomplished through a reiterative and reflexive process.
Keywords
In our current sociopolitical climate, there is an increased recognition of the need for antiracist policies and practices to produce a more racially equitable society. Scholars have investigated how racially polarizing events such as the Trump presidency and the Black Lives Matter movement have contributed to both the racial and ethnic identity and the sociopolitical development of youth of color (YOC; 1 Kennedy et al., 2020; Rogers et al., 2021). YOC experience frequent discrimination and racism (Hope & Bañales, 2019; Seider et al., 2018; Szymanski & Lewis, 2015), have evolving definitions of racism (Hope et al., 2015; Roberts et al., 2008; Seider et al., 2018), and are involved in sociopolitical action ranging from everyday resistance to racism to coordinated antiracist activism and community organizing (Anyiwo et al., 2020; Bañales et al., 2020; Hope et al., 2019; Mathews et al., 2020; Tyler et al., 2020). Additional research related to how YOC conceptualize and define the construct of antiracism, as well as the nature of their critical consciousness of this construct, is needed to inform community practice and community engaged research with YOC.
Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR) has been posited as a supportive context where youth are engaged in self reflection, encounter new opportunities and ideas, confront social problems, and propose solutions that are pertinent and meaningful to their communities (Aldana et al., 2021). YPAR contexts present an opportunity for both (a) investigating youths’ general definitions and critical consciousness of antiracism and (b) elevating youth voices in conceptualizing intentionally antiracist YPAR projects and methods. Given YPAR’s commitment to active engagement, it is essential for YPAR researchers to engage YOC not only within the confines of YPAR projects, but also in reflecting on YPAR methods and processes—a step toward ensuring that YPAR projects are intentionally antiracist spaces, and that YPAR methods are congruent with antiracist principles and practices.
In this instrumental case study (Stake, 1995), we utilize a YPAR project as a supportive context (Watts et al., 2003) to investigate the sociopolitical development of YOC and to better understand youths’ antiracist critical consciousness within this context. Drawing on Watts et al. (2011), we examine three dimensions of antiracist critical consciousness: critical reflection, political efficacy, and critical action. We seek to identify and analyze these dimensions by understanding how YOC define the construct of antiracism (“what is antiracism?” “how can one be an antiracist?”), as well as their conceptualization of and recommendations for antiracist YPAR projects (“how do you facilitate and/or design an antiracist YPAR project?”).
This study contributes to the literature on critical consciousness and sociopolitical development in three primary ways. First, given that research on critical action is more limited than research on critical reflection and political efficacy, we set out to examine the relationship between all dimensions within the YPAR supportive context (Watts et al., 2003). Second, we contribute to the literature on critical consciousness and sociopolitical development by focusing on YOC’s antiracism. While research has examined YOC’s understanding of racism (Roberts et al., 2008; Seider et al., 2018), discrimination (Hope & Bañales, 2019; Hope et al., 2015), and racialized experiences (Hope et al., 2015; Nordberg et al., 2018), less attention has been paid to youths’ conceptions of resistance to racism or antiracism. This study provides a snapshot of these dimensions for youth engaged in a YPAR project. Third, we contribute to the literature on YPAR methods by outlining YOC’s definitions of antiracist YPAR projects, as well as youth and adult allies’ recommendations for centering antiracist pedagogy and praxis in YPAR.
Background
Freirean Critical Consciousness
Critical consciousness or “conscientizicatión” is a concept that entails both an understanding of the systemic inequities and oppressions that structure the social world as well as the willingness to act to transform those conditions (Freire, 1970, 1973). Freire argued critical consciousness could be developed through a process of dialogue between teachers and learners, in which teachers engage in an equitable, shared meaning-making process with students. Through this process, both teachers and learners dialectically share their understandings to decipher and illuminate the systems of oppression in their lives. Watts et al. (2011) extended Freire’s concept of critical consciousness by further delineating three interdependent dimensions of it: critical reflection, political efficacy, and critical action.
Critical reflection is the “social analysis and moral rejection of societal inequities. . . that constrain well-being and human agency” (Watts et al., 2011, p. 46). Critical reflection entails identifying and analyzing social inequities and the power structures that maintain them, a process that acts as a precursor to the critical action dimension of critical consciousness. Individuals who are more critically reflective see inequities as structural problems rather than individual-level problems (Aldana et al., 2019; Watts et al., 2011, 2003). The second dimension, political efficacy, refers to a “perceived capacity to effect social and political change via individual and/or collective activism” (Watts et al., 2011, p. 46). Research on social movements purports that individuals are more likely to engage in individual or collective action if they believe their actions have the potential to bring about desired social change (Hope & Bañales, 2019; Lee, 2010; Velasquez & LaRose, 2015; Watts et al., 2011). The evolution of political efficacy is also a precursor to critical action, allowing individuals to locate and scaffold their ability to affect change, both at an individual and collective level.
The last dimension, critical action, refers to the individual or collective actions taken to resist inequities and to change unjust social conditions (Watts et al., 2011). Critical action is a broad construct, entailing political and social participation at diverging scales including voting and electoral organizing, community organizing, mutual aid, and participation in protest or direct action against systemic oppression including racism, classism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia etc. (Aldana et al., 2019; Bañales et al., 2019; Watts et al., 2011, 2015).
Scholars of critical consciousness and critical youth studies have argued that research in these areas have focused heavily on the critical reflection and political efficacy dimensions of critical consciousness, at the expense of critical action (Diemer, 2020; Watts et al., 2015). YPAR projects provide an important avenue for investigating all the dimensions of critical consciousness, including how reflection and political efficacy may lead youth to take individual and collective action to improve or change their personal, interpersonal, and sociopolitical conditions (Foster-Fishman et al., 2010; Kornbluh et al., 2015; Scott et al., 2015).
Adolescent Critical Consciousness on Antiracism
Watts et al. (2003) argue that critical consciousness in adolescence emerges during youths’ sociopolitical development. They conceptualize sociopolitical development as a “process of growth of a person’s knowledge, analytical skills, emotional faculties, and capacity for action in political and social systems” (Watts et al., 2003, p. 185). As sociopolitical development progresses, individuals become increasingly aware of their personal and collective histories, as well as existing social and political inequities (Watts et al., 2003). For YOC, sociopolitical development entails an awareness of race, racism, and racialized experiences and processes, as well as “learning to think critically about accepted ways of thinking and feeling, discerning the hidden interests in underlying assumptions and framing notions (whether these be class-, gender-, race/ethnicity- or sect-based)” (Hopper, 1999, p. 210).
Although much has been written on YOC’s conceptualizations and critical awareness of race and racism (Hope & Bañales, 2019; Hope et al., 2015; Roberts et al., 2008; Seider et al., 2018; Szymanski & Lewis, 2015), less attention has been paid to their conceptualization and critical awareness of antiracism or resistance to racism (Aldana et al., 2019; Bañales et al., 2019). In this study, we focus on YOC’s state of sociopolitical development by examining their critical consciousness of antiracism, and how they demonstrate this consciousness within a YPAR project.
Theories of antiracism call for thinking, acting, and advocating in ways that challenge racism from the micro to macro levels (Kendi, 2019; Miller & Garran, 2017; Pollock, 2008; Rozas & Miller, 2009). Pollock (2008) argues that everyday antiracism is guided by four foundational principles: (a) rejecting essentialism or erroneous assertions about inherent human differences; (b) acknowledging and elevating the lived experiences of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color; (c) validating and centering various forms of knowledge and ways of knowing; and (d) challenging systems of racial oppression.
Importantly, Pollocks’ foundational principles intersect with the three dimensions of critical consciousness outlined by Watts et al. (2011). Principles 1 and 2 (rejecting essentialism; acknowledging lived experiences) are congruent with both the critical reflection, and to a lesser extent, the critical action dimensions of critical consciousness. Rejecting essentialism amounts to what Watts et al. (2011) argue is the “social analysis and moral rejection of societal inequities . . . that constrain well-being and human agency,” (p.46) while elevating people of color’s lived experiences constitutes a critical action against racial inequity. Principle 3 (validating and centering various ways of knowing) is congruent with both political efficacy and critical action. Validating certain ways of knowing implies their political potential to challenge hegemonic epistemologies (political efficacy), and the act of centering them is a form of critical action. Finally, Principle 4 (challenging systems of racial oppression) is congruent primarily with critical action, especially at the structural level. As such, Pollock’s principles not only provide a framework for understanding everyday antiracism, but also intersect with Watts et al.’s (2011) definitions of critical reflection, political efficacy, and critical action.
YPAR as a Site of Critical Pedagogy and Critical Consciousness
One key aspect of the sociopolitical development framework is the existence of a supportive social context or set of experiences that promote reflection and learning (Watts et al., 2003). In order for individuals’ “social change schemas to grow more sophisticated,” they must be involved in a dialogical process of learning, reflection, and action (Watts et al., 2003, p. 188). YPAR has been posited as a site for critical pedagogy, allowing youth to express and demonstrate critical consciousness (Cammarota, 2017; Kennedy et al., 2020; Kornbluh et al., 2015; Scott et al., 2015; Sprague Martinez et al., 2017; Sprague Martinez, Tang Yan, McClay, et al., 2020).
YPAR is conceptualized as a process through which youth are engaged in investigating and responding to the factors that impact their lives (Cammarota & Fine, 2010; Checkoway, 2011; Ozer, 2017; Pritzker & Richards-Schuster, 2016; Rodríguez & Brown, 2009). Principles guiding YPAR and other community-engaged research include power-sharing (researcher and participant; adult and youth), shared decision-making, legitimation of various forms of knowledge including lived experiences, and an orientation toward collective action and social change (Augsberger et al., 2019; Bettencourt, 2020; Checkoway, 2011; Checkoway et al., 2003; Pritzker & Richards-Schuster, 2016; Sprague Martinez, Tang Yan, McClay, et al., 2020).
In this study, we use sociopolitical development and critical consciousness as sensitizing frameworks to examine YOC’s definition of antiracism. We consider how the YOC involved in this YPAR project conceptualize antiracism (learning and critical reflection), and how youth members and adult allies incorporate and propose antiracist principles and practices within a YPAR project (experience and critical action). In addition, we engage both youth and adult allies in critical pedagogy (Leonardo, 2009), inviting them to reflect on more racially equitable YPAR projects in both form and content.
Method
All study protocols were reviewed by the Boston University Charles River Campus, protocol #5643X. We employed an instrumental case study design (Stake, 1995) to explore youth conceptions of antiracism as well as youth members and adult allies’ strategies for cultivating an antiracist YPAR project. Instrumental case study design involves selecting a particular case to understand specific issues (Creswell & Poth, 2016; Crowe et al., 2011). This approach is widely used in social science research and focuses on the study of a case in a real-life, present-day setting (Creswell & Poth, 2016; Crowe et al., 2011).
Case Background
The Boston Medical Center Youth Advisory Board was developed based on recommendations from a 2018 YPAR project conducted by Boston University School of Social Work and Boston Medical Center Family Medicine, which cited the need to elevate the voices of YOC in health care research and decision making (Sprague Martinez, Tang Yan, Augsberger, et al., 2020). With support from the Boston University Clinical & Translational Science Institute, the Boston Medical Center Youth Advisory Board was established to further the health equity goals of YOC.
The youth advisory board was conducted entirely virtually due to COVID19 restrictions. The youth board members (n = 8, aged 16–24 years) were selected from diverse neighborhoods and schools across Boston and include 5 female and 3 male members. Youth board members self-identify as Latinx/Hispanic (2), Vietnamese-Chinese (1), Black/Asian (1), Black/African American (2), Black/Nigerian-American (1), and Afro-Caribbean (1). The adult ally team (n = 7) consists of two co-principal investigators (both identify as female and white), a co-investigator (female, Black), two research coordinators (both identify as female; Middle Eastern/North African and White/Native American), and two youth consultants (non-binary, Mixed Race—Black, Latinx and Native American; male, Latino).
The board implemented a YPAR orientation in which youth members and adult allies participated in trainings on YPAR methodology, youth-adult partnerships, health equity (Sprague Martinez et al., 2017; Sprague Martinez, Tang Yan, McClay, et al., 2020), and health services. Youth members met weekly with the research coordinators (August 2021-April 2021) to develop research questions and collect and analyze data to inform a health promotion campaign focused on establishing trust among YOC and health care practitioners, and the role that intergenerational trauma plays in the relationship between health care providers and young patients of color.
Data Collection
The study draws on 10 data sources, as detailed in Table 1, including key informant interviews (n = 14; eight youth board members, six adult allies), meeting minutes and transcripts, and additional project documents. Data were collected by the research coordinators and one youth consultant (aged 19 years) between July 2020 and January 2021. After a comprehensive review of the literature, the key informant interview protocol was developed by the research coordinators and reviewed by one of the youth consultants and one youth board member. The key informant interviews were then conducted by the project research coordinators and one of the youth consultants, averaged 62 minutes, and covered topics including project processes and experiences, youth voice and empowerment, adult readiness, youth conceptualization of antiracism, and strategies for facilitating an intentionally antiracist YPAR. The interviewers completed 1–2 page analytical memos 24–48 hours post-interview. To supplement and triangulate findings from the interviews, the research coordinators reviewed the YPAR orientation transcripts and recordings of adult ally meetings. They also collected the remainder of textual data sources (described in Table 1) for data analysis.
YPAR Project Data Sources.
Note. YPAR = Youth Participatory Action Research.
Data Analysis
During data analysis, members of the research team (including the two research coordinators, one youth consultant, and two youth board members [aged 16 and 17 years]) engaged in critical discussions regarding the teams’ approach to data analysis, including which members would be involved at each stage of the process. Due to time constraints, youth members requested that the research coordinators code the interview transcripts and other textual materials, and consult with the youth once an initial codebook was formed.
Each data source was coded inductively, both remaining close to the data source and allowing for patterns or themes to be identified (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Patton, 1990). Constant comparative methods (Glaser & Straus, 2017) were used to compare themes within each data source and across the data sources to identify areas of convergence and divergence. The research coordinators also used Watts et al.’s (2011) conceptualization of critical consciousness, as well as Pollock’s (2008) foundational principles of antiracism as sensitizing concepts (Blumer, 1954) guiding the coding process. Sensitizing concepts are theoretically-derived, allowing the researcher to document within a given data source the constructs that are reflected in the broader body of literature on a particular subject, while allowing for the main themes to be identified directly from the data (Blumer, 1954).
Phase 1: Analysis of key informant interviews
In Phase 1, the two research coordinators used an inductive approach to analyze key informant interviews (n = 14). First, they read each interview transcript multiple times to immerse themselves in the data, search for meaningful patterns, and reflect on their initial impressions (Braun & Clarke, 2006). After reading all transcripts, the research team convened to discuss initial impressions and to ensure consistency in the team’s analytic approach (Boyatzis, 1998). Next, the research coordinators coded the interviews independently to develop an initial codebook, using sensitizing concepts (Blumer, 1954) to guide their analysis while allowing for codes to be identified directly from the transcripts.
Once initial coding was completed, the research team convened to discuss the initial codebook, consolidate initial codes into a focused codebook, and provide a definition and sample excerpts for each of the revised, focused codes. For example, three separate initial codes of “giving up privilege,” “giving up power/resources,” and “opposing structural racism and/or the racist status quo,” were collapsed into the focused code “actively resisting racism,” defined as concrete examples of upsetting the racial status quo through interpersonal or structural actions. Next, the research coordinators applied the focused codes to all interviews, convening in weekly meetings to discuss and resolve any discrepancies or divergences in coding or interpretation, and with input from the two youth board members.
This process allowed the focused codebook to develop in accordance with interviewees’ conceptualizations of antiracism, as well as capture strategies that they identified for facilitating intentionally antiracist YPARs. The research team decided to deductively apply the focused codebook to the textual materials in phase two of data analysis before generating the final themes. This decision was made to use the youth interviewees’ perspectives as the lens guiding the analysis of the additional textual project materials, rather than relying solely on the perspectives of the research coordinators.
Phase 2: Analysis of other textual materials
The research coordinators utilized the final codebook generated during Phase 1 to code other data sources, including notes from orientation meetings, YPAR weekly meetings, notes from the adult ally meetings, workshop transcripts, and other project materials. The research coordinators documented codes that were not reflected in the focused codebook from Phase 1, and met regularly during phase two to define the new codes that they identified in the additional textual project materials and to resolve any discrepancies in coding or interpretation.
Phase 3: Code consolidation into themes
The research coordinators sorted the final codes into themes and explored relationships between themes and codes across levels (Braun & Clarke, 2006). For example, the research coordinators took the codes “understanding and accounting for sexuality,” “understanding and accounting for class,” “understanding and accounting for gender,” and formed a theme of incorporating an intersectional lens. The themes selected through this process were further reviewed, refined, and compared to sensitizing concepts of critical consciousness and antiracism (Pollock, 2008) in collaboration with two youth members. The research team then ensured the data within each theme was both cohesive and distinct (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Patton, 1990) and identified the larger story within the data (Braun & Clarke, 2006). At this stage, the research team engaged in discussions to select illustrative quotes and to produce a succinct, cogent story of the data within and across all data sources (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Finally, the findings were reviewed and agreed upon by the other authors.
We acknowledge that our analyses are influenced by our positionality as researchers and individuals. Although we are a racially diverse team, adult women led much of the analyses due to the time constraints expressed by the youth members. However, youth were consistently engaged throughout the data analysis phase to reduce gendered and adult-oriented interpretations of the findings. Most importantly, our research team prioritized the interpretations and perspectives of the youth members in crafting our study findings and in selecting quotes that the youth determined to be most illustrative of the larger narrative, as well as most consistent with their experience of the YPAR project.
Results
Our results are organized around the following research questions: (a) how do youth of color engaged in a YPAR project conceptualize and define antiracism? and (b) how do youth and adult allies conceptualize an intentionally antiracist YPAR project, and what strategies do they use and/or recommend to this end? The themes identified for each of the research questions are discussed below, with accompanying illustrative excerpts from interview transcripts.
Research Question 1: Youth of Color’s Conceptualizations and Definitions of Antiracism
According to the youth participants, the practice of antiracism or being an antiracist entails (a) listening to and elevating marginalized voices, (b) actively resisting racism, (c) incorporating an intersectional lens in responding to racism, and (d) examining and responding to privilege, positionality, and power. These themes are further described in the following.
Listening to and elevating marginalized voices
In articulating a definition of antiracism, youth reflected critically on the importance of listening to people of color, and marginalized communities more broadly, on their own lived experiences. This was posited as an antiracist practice in two ways. First, youth asserted that listening to marginalized people demonstrated empathy, a desire to learn, and a willingness to dedicate time and energy to “be informed of the experiences of others” (Youth Member 8). For example, in responding to the interview question “what does antiracism or being an antiracist mean to you?” one youth expressed that “being antiracist is all about taking the time to sit down and listen” (Youth Member 1). In addition, youth emphasized elevating marginalized voices as a way to ensure that their interests are consistently represented, and that issues of racism or oppression are confronted by others with diverging experiences. In responding to the interview prompt “tell me about a specific example of antiracism or resistance to racism that you’ve experienced, seen, or heard about,” one youth member discussed an antiracist practice at their school that resonated with them: Whenever there are events involving race . . . they make an effort to not only address it but . . . make sure that they’ll bring in either professionals or student groups . . . speak on the topic. They don’t try to address the issue themselves, they try to bring people who have lived through these experiences . . . people who really know what they’re doing because at the end of the day, they don’t want it to just end after they make their statement, they wanna keep the conversation going and make sure that people are really thinking about these things on a daily basis. (Youth Member 4)
Another youth member went further in asserting that elevating marginalized voices entails both ensuring that the social problems communities face are elevated, and that those most impacted have a seat at the table when discussing potential solutions: One way to be more antiracist that whenever you see, for example, the groups in power holding a discussion, for example, it could be like, hey, I think we need to listen more to them about it because they’re the people undergoing the stress or the condition that you’re so desperately trying to solve. (Youth Member 5)
Critical reflection on centering YOC voices was further demonstrated through the research topics that the youth pursued. In defining their research questions, youth underscored the need to do research so that “the most marginalized will benefit.” This entailed amplifying YOC voices on discrimination within health care settings, how discrimination may interfere with health service access and utilization, and how “alternative medicine” utilized by communities of color must be conceptualized as a vital part of primary medicine rather than being relegated a secondary status.
Actively resisting racism
The second dimension of antiracism that was mentioned in all youth interviews was the need to actively challenge, resist, and oppose racism at both the interpersonal and structural levels. At the interpersonal level, youth discussed how resistance to racism entailed identifying racism and understanding how it operates within interpersonal dynamics, as well as responding to it directly when it arises. When asked to define antiracism, one youth expressed the following: It’s really challenging people who are racist. Just don’t be the person who stands in, as a fly on the wall and letting things happen. Because at the end of the day, a lot of us see some ignorant stuff and we let it pass because, oh, we know that person’s just joking around or, oh yeah, we know that person, they’re not one of those people. But when we have a bunch of people who think it’s okay to say that because . . . they think and the people around them think that, oh, they’re not actually that bad. It’s, you know. . . that’s when you secretly empower a whole group. (Youth Member 5)
In other interviews, youth members asserted that resistance to interpersonal racism has to be maintained, even when the perpetrator is a close friend or family member, where the stakes to confronting racism may be higher. This resistance included moving beyond speech (articulating one’s resistance to racism or calling oneself an antiracist), and committing to treating others as equals. For example, one youth expressed, I think you have to not only see us as people, but you also have to teach others that we’re people and show through your actions that you really do see us as people, rather than just like, you know, your words. (Youth Member 6)
Youth also demonstrated a robust understanding of antiracism at the structural level, arguing that resistance to structural racism required understanding the history of race (including its social construction) and racism, acknowledging the systemic and ubiquitous nature of racism, and opposing these systems through action and speech. As reported by one youth member: I think it’s being willing to go against like the systems that are established because, oftentimes, like even without like the people within the systems knowing the structure inherently sets certain groups behind. (Youth Member 8)
In describing both interpersonal and structural resistance to racism throughout the phases of the YPAR project, youth moved between the three dimensions of critical consciousness (Watts et al., 2011). This was evident in their initial applications, where they discussed the need for the reallocation of wealth and resources as a way to increase racial equity in their communities (n = 4), the effects of segregation and redlining on communities of color (n = 1), and the need for more affordable housing options (n = 1). Youth exhibited further structural awareness when asked to reflect on community health during one of the YPAR project activities. They argued that people of color are overlooked and dismissed in the health care system and supported their claims with specific examples. They then decided to center their research project on this topic and to explore potential routes for improving people of color’s health outcomes. In addition, youth members argued that the process of knowledge production has to include the voices of those most impacted by a certain context, phenomenon, or problem. To this end, they prioritized conducting interviews with community members in addition to health care providers.
Incorporating an intersectional lens
In six of the eight interviews, youth’s definitions of antiracism were informed by an intersectional framework. The youth defined intersectionality as the examination of multiple vectors of oppression and privilege to account for the complex ways in which different forms of systemic inequalities and power relations manifest. For example, in responding to the prompt “how can one be an antiracist,” youth referenced the need to examine various forms of privilege including the privileges associated with whiteness, class, ability, gender, and sexual orientation, and even education level and status: And then you’re like, “Well, you have privilege because both of your parents went to college, and you’re privileged because you are at a great school, where other people might not have it.” And so, thinking about it from, “Okay, how can I put myself into the shoes of other people and understand like, where they might be coming from.” (Youth Member 2)
In other interviews, youth members also acknowledged the privilege associated with different identities including “straight privilege” (Youth Member 2) and “male privilege” (Youth Member 7). This commitment to intersectionality was evident throughout the project. For instance, during the orientation period of the YPAR project, youth completed a socio-ecological brainstorm activity focused on the factors that influence one’s heath, acknowledging the many dimensions of privilege and oppression and explicitly naming factors such as age, sex, gender, class, sexual orientation, and education level as factors contributing to one’s experience of the world. Further, youth members sought to translate their research instruments into commonly spoken languages in the Greater Boston Area (such as Spanish, Haitian Creole, and Arabic), to increase the accessibility of the research to traditionally marginalized communities. They also advocated for “write-in sections” for race, gender, and sexuality to allow people to express their identities without the potential exclusions of pre-populated categories.
In addition, when participating in project workshops on what health and “healthiness” meant to them or their communities, youth emphasized the intersection of race and class in determining health outcomes. For example, youth discussed how racially segregated neighborhoods experienced food deserts, how gentrification drove up grocery costs, and how cheap foods for families struggling financially influenced their long-term health outcomes. As demonstrated throughout the project, youth’s definitions of antiracism diverged from Pollock’s (2008) in that they were more expansive, tying antiracism as a concept to other forms of resistance to oppression. In their view, antiracism is inherently interconnected with anti-oppressive stances much like different forms of oppression are connected with each other.
Examining and responding to privilege, positionality, and power
The final dimension of antiracism that youth members underscored is the prerequisite of constant reflection on one’s own privileges, positionality, and power, especially with regards to one’s racial and ethnic identities. They discussed the ways that unearned privilege can distort one’s understanding of others’ experiences, and the importance of leveraging one’s privilege to uplift others, amplify their voices, and express solidarity with their concerns, struggles, and movements. In reflecting on the nationwide Black Lives Matter protests in response to the George Floyd killing, a youth asserted: For the Black Lives Matter movement, if there’s ever been a moment where a white person who has said like, “Hey, yeah, no, this is not okay. . . Black Lives Matter, you know,” and they’re like, “I am white, and I am here standing with people of color,” like that’s a moment where I’m like, “Yes, thank you” (Youth Member 6)
In the above interview, Youth Member 6 centered the temporal urgency for white people to leverage their privilege and power, and to actively participate in the movement against police brutality.
In addition, youth discussed the importance of considering one’s position relative to others, and understanding differences in lived experience as well as power levels based on dimensions of identity contributing to interpersonal and group-level dynamics. For example, in defining how to practice antiracism, one youth described the examination of positionality and power as follows: When working with people of color, the understanding like there is a power dynamic inherent to it. And so, thinking about how if you are not a POC [person of color], knowing that even though you have more experience, you don’t have the lived experience. (Youth Member 2)
Awareness and examination of their positionality are both practices that the youth themselves engaged in throughout the phases of the project, and ones that evolved over time. This awareness was especially evident in YPAR workshop sessions on health within communities of color during the COVID19 pandemic. During these sessions, youth discussed the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on communities of color, as well as how power and privilege may influence one’s responses to the pandemic such as “choosing to believe that it is not real.” The youth considered this examination of positionality a vital component of antiracist praxis writ large, but also a necessary component for antiracist YPAR projects.
Research Question # 2: Facilitating Intentionally Antiracist YPAR Projects
The themes that we identified on how youth and adult allies conceptualize an intentionally antiracist YPAR project, and the strategies they use and/or recommend using include (a) prioritizing people of color in YPAR processes; (b) acknowledging and responding to positionality, racism, and racialized dynamics; (c) engaging in ongoing preparation and education; and (d) centering dialogue and reflection.
When relevant, we describe the extent to which these antiracist practices articulated by the youth and adult allies were achieved within our project, and the extent to which they are still aspirational and constitute recommendations for future YPAR projects.
Prioritizing people of color in YPAR processes
One way that both youth members and adult allies conceptualized intentionally antiracist YPARs included prioritizing people of color by centering their experiences, concerns, and goals throughout the YPAR phases. This practice entails engaging YPAR leadership and facilitators of color, intentionally recruiting and hiring YOC, and centering communities of color’s concerns in the research process (defining research questions and methodology, sampling, etc.). In answering the interview question “what advice would you give to future YPAR facilitators on how to facilitate an antiracist YPAR project?” one adult ally summed up these dimensions: I would say recruit. Make sure your board has youth of color. Make sure your leadership has people of color. Make sure that you’re incorporating antiracist principles in your training so you’re thinking about it, you’re talking about identities, you’re talking about antiracism, you’re talking about different experiences of oppression or marginalization, like whatever those are. Whether they’re class related, race related, gender identity related or sexual orientation. . . incorporating, understanding what those are. (Adult Ally 5)
Youth provided similar recommendations, further arguing that an intentionally antiracist YPAR project ought not only to engage YPAR members of color, but also to center larger communities of color’s concerns in the research process, elevating their voices, and answering questions with practice and policy implications that are pertinent to them.
Further, youth demonstrated critical reflection by giving advice to “future” YPAR participants, encouraging others to find their voice, question predominantly white institutions, and demand more from YPAR facilitators. For example, in response to the question “what advice would you give to other YPAR youth members on facilitating an intentionally antiracist project?” one youth asserted: When you’re going to start an antiracist project, always ask yourself, do I feel that my voice is just as important as the other people, or the other people who give me feedback? Or do I feel that when I’m communicating with the people who have traditionally held positions of power, do I feel that my opinion is valued just as much? . . . Do I feel like whatever I’m saying is actually like being processed and they’re giving an answer that is appropriate with whatever I’m saying? (Youth Member 5)
Within the current project, youth flagged the recruitment and hiring of board members of color as a positive step toward antiracist practice. For example, one youth expressed: “you are taking the input of a bunch of kids of color and I feel like that doesn’t happen too often” (Youth Member 3). Others, including adult allies, also prioritized the recruitment and hiring of YOC: I think that the way that we’ve actively incorporated them is about being very intentional about the youth who are even recruited in the first place. You know, we were very intentional about it, recruiting youth of color. I think the, the whole board is youth of color, which is really necessary. I mean it didn’t have to be that way, right? (Adult Ally 5)
This sentiment was present even at the onset of the project, where youth critically reflected on the importance of elevating YOC voices in their YPAR position applications. Many of them articulated that one of the main motivators for their participation in this project is the fact that it is a space for YOC to express their concerns and have a seat at the table. As the project progressed, youth critically interrogated the idea that the mere representation of YPAR members of color is sufficient for facilitating antiracist YPARs, underscored instances of racism or racialized dynamics within the current project, and sought to amplify communities of color’s voices in their research design.
Themes across youth interviews, as well as other project data, suggest that youth involved in this YPAR project have a comprehensive analysis for how to best center people of color’s voices. This analysis moves beyond tokenism or representation, advocating instead for centering people of color in project leadership and membership, as well as the actual content of the YPAR project including the research agenda, subject of inquiry, and practical applications to people’s lives.
Acknowledging and responding to positionality, racism, and racialized dynamics
Youth members and adult allies asserted that a vital YPAR antiracist practice is to create formal and informal spaces for acknowledging and reflecting upon one’s positionality—or the social and political contexts that shape one’s identity and social relations to other. Youth members argued that these discussion spaces are also necessary for confronting racialized dynamics, naming racism and microaggressions, and strategizing on how to respond to these dynamics both directly and proactively.
Within this YPAR project, youth members prioritized this strategy, creating and cultivating spaces for reflecting on the positionality of, and racialized dynamics between, our project members. For example, in responding to the interview question “In your opinion, how does this project currently incorporate antiracist practices?” one youth member described how the youth used a group chat as a space to discuss and process racialized project dynamics in real time: We have our chat with each other. And so we can say, “Hey. Like that felt weird to me. Did that feel weird to you?” So like, bounce that off of each other, and then figure out exactly what about it was weird. And then present that either at the time or like later once it’s formed, and bring it to the group and say, like, “Hey. Like we understand what the intention was, but this is how it was perceived.” So just utilizing the network and not being afraid to, to say like, to help people learn. (Youth Member 2)
This space for reflection was actively supported by the youth consultant attending many of the youths’ weekly meetings. Reflecting on how the current project incorporated antiracist practices, youth members often referenced the consultant’s active commitment to underscoring racialized incidents to other adult allies, especially white individuals, on the project: Having conversations that come back to it [microaggressions] has been helpful. And then in our Wednesday [youth only] meetings, I think there was a time [Youth Consultant] was talking about how they see that’s how it sounded, to us, but that there was conversation around like how [Adult Ally redacted] and [Adult Ally redacted]’s responses or actions can be perceived racially. (Youth Member 2)
In their reflections on positionality, youth also frequently referenced the project co-investigator, a Black woman, whose area of expertise includes Community-based Participatory Research, YPAR, and health equity, highlighting the importance of her contributions on the social determinants of health in shaping their overall conceptualization of health. Several youths commented on how her presentation created a space for them to reflect on how sociopolitical, structural factors directly influence individual and community-level health outcomes.
In addition to the cultivation of discussion spaces, youth reflected on how they increasingly named and responded to instances of racism, microaggressions, or interactions they perceive to be racialized in nature. For example, referencing a specific racialized dynamic in a discussion between youth members and adult allies, one youth member expressed: It’s kind of just people talking amongst themselves without really kind of referring to us [youth]. And like some, some things like they’ll like try to shut it down. And it’s like, you do realize like the whole purpose of this project is to bring attention to the voices of youth of color. (Youth Member 1)
Of note, in naming racist and racialized interactions, most youth demonstrated an understanding of structural racism, which is often upheld by institutional demographics, priorities, and inertia. As noted by a youth, “sometimes you can get hit with like the reality that if you are a person of color working under a primarily white institution, there can be these kinds of like microaggressions” (Youth Member 6). In this interview, the youth member was not only referencing the racialized nature of interpersonal dynamics between white people and people of color, but also referring to the ways that predominantly white institutions are inherently hostile to people of color, and especially YOC.
Youths’ nuanced understanding of structural racism became increasingly apparent during conversations where the group discussed racial inequity, both within the project and society at large. This was demonstrated during one of the project workshops where youth examined the social determinants of health contributing to negative health outcomes for people of color (lack of access to affordable foods and green spaces, long work hours, bias or discrimination of health care providers), and in determining the research question where youth discussed the types of racism and discrimination that people of color face in US health care settings (lack of access to universal health care).
Youths’ active naming of racism often included questioning the role of white leadership on the YPAR project, as well as questioning the priorities of predominantly white institutions. In reflecting on the YPAR project structure, one youth member asserted: “We’re kind of playing that kind of stereotype of like, you know, the people of color working for the white people” (Youth Member 1). In this interview, the youth underscored the ways that predominantly white institutions– including health care and academic institutions– are not only hostile to people of color via racist interpersonal interactions, but also hostile in a structural sense. One way this hostility manifests is when white people exclusively occupy positions of leadership, while people of color are always left working “for them.” Interrogating the reality that the front-facing project primary investigators were white women, youth discussed the importance of having leaders and facilitators of color who (a) “looked like us” and (b) were able to understand the experiences of people of color and prioritize their concerns and goals. Similarly, youth also contested the reality of working with predominantly white institutions steeped in the racial status quo, questioning YPAR projects’ priorities: It was kind of like, that first presentation . . . we were like, “Oh, were we just kind of hired as like a performative thing? Like, did they not actually expect us to do anything?” But then we were like, “You know like let’s cut some slack.” But like, it was sort of like a continued thing where. . . It feels like with white people, it’s kind of like the big concern is being perceived as a racist. (Youth Member 2)
While these reflections routinely took place throughout the course of the project, youth members hesitated at first to share their concerns with adult allies because they felt that they “did not have power in the situation.” However, when asked in key informant interviews to reflect on the extent to which the project is or is not antiracist, youth identified the need to be more proactive in bringing concerns about microaggressions or racialized dynamics to adult allies, and requesting to process them as a group. Youths’ self-awareness of the need to be more proactive in naming instances of racism, and their willingness to do so, suggests an increased sense of political efficacy at the midpoint of the project.
Adult allies also discussed the need to make room for youth to express their positions, as well as the need for adults to identify and moderate the space that they occupy within the project: … at the end of the day, that’s what they’re [adult allies] here to do, make room. . . And allow people do what they want to do specifically young people of color, like that’s basically the framework of their job is making room. (Adult Ally 4)
Overall, our findings demonstrate that actively processing racism, racialized dynamics, and members’ positionalities is a necessary practice for sustainable antiracist YPAR projects. They also demonstrate that the developing commitment to antiracist practices within our project had been largely led and cultivated by the youth members.
Engaging in ongoing preparation and education
Youth members and adult allies asserted that the ability to reflect on one’s role and positionality within a YPAR project is largely dependent on the type of prior and ongoing training, preparation, and education one receives, particularly on topics such as racism and microaggressions, shared decision making, and power dynamics. In responding to the interview question, “what advice would you give to future YPAR facilitators on how to facilitate an intentionally antiracist YPAR?” an adult ally expressed: I would recommend for them to have a training from the very beginning of the project, even if it doesn’t seem necessary. I think you can’t really go through a project being antiracist if you don’t set down the tools for people to utilize them. . . what do I have to educate myself on? What do I have to do within myself? What do I have to do within my interactions with others? They’re not going to be able to go through that project successfully being antiracist, or at least being able to reflect how their behaviors don’t reflect antiracist like, like doings. (Adult Ally 1)
Youth members argued that trainings ought to underscore the difference between intention and impact, and acknowledge that YPAR facilitators may be well-intentioned but may continue to engage in racialized dynamics throughout the course of a project. In describing the need for training, one youth member remarked: “I feel like they mean well, but I don’t think they. . . it doesn’t seem like they’ve worked with youth of color before” (Youth Member 8).
The emphasis on training, preparation, and education was motivated by youths’ ongoing experiences within the YPAR project and their perception that white adult allies needed additional training for interacting with YOC, honing in on race rather than age as a factor to be aware of and responsive to. In addition, youth highlighted the importance of continuing to learn about how race and racism operate in various contexts (health care, education, academia etc.) and how to respond to racism in effective ways.
Centering dialogue and reflection
Finally, in defining an antiracist YPAR, adult allies and youth members both underscored the need for ongoing dialogue and reflection beyond initial project preparation and orientation. Youth discussed the importance of conversation in building trust, rapport, and community with adult allies and among the youth members: I think that you should really try to create a space where you feel comfortable to talk about how you’re feeling, and talk about your viewpoints and things like that, and I also think that you should make an effort to, even if you don’t agree with someone, have a conversation, don’t just like go off on them and completely write them off in your mind, which is I think something that this team has done really well, is that we can say our opinions, say how we feel, talk about them, and at the end of the day, you know, none of us are offended, none of us feel attacked. (Youth Member 6)
In addition, youth perceived community building activities as necessary prerequisites for cultivating the types of relationships needed to (a) feel comfortable to engage in dialogue and reflection and (b) confront sensitive topics including racism, ageism, and other forms of oppression and/or discrimination. This is further demonstrated by the types of community guidelines that the youth elected to center when discussing how best to pursue group activities. Youth underscored guidelines such as: “take space, make space,” “assume best intentions and attend to impact,” “call people in not out,” “foster open communication,” and “listen to understand.” They perceived both dialogue and reflection as distinct from ongoing education on race and racism in that the former centered group dynamics, community building, and sharing viewpoints on a wide array of topics. As such, youth valued activities for building trust, which they argued is a necessary foundation for discussing sensitive topics and successfully adopting an antiracist stance within a YPAR project.
Discussion
Our findings suggest that YOC provide complex critical reflections on and definitions of antiracism. These findings are consistent with previous scholarship on youths’ understandings of racism (Aldana et al., 2019; Diemer et al., 2016; Watts & Flanagan, 2007), and contribute to this body of literature by demonstrating that YOC have sophisticated understandings of antiracism as well.
In defining antiracism, youth provide a similar definition to Pollock’s (2008) foundational principles of antiracism, but go further by underscoring the need for incorporating intersectional approaches as well as constant reflection on one’s positionality, privilege, and power. To the youth in our study, to be antiracist is to be intersectional, a practice that requires us to acknowledge and push back against all oppressive structure such as classism, sexism, colorism, homophobia, and transphobia. The principles of intersectionality developed by Crenshaw (1991) and other critical race theorists appear to be at the forefront of youths’ considerations of racism and antiracism alike.
In addition, we found that YOC have a multi-layered understanding of how racism operates at the interpersonal and structural levels, and discussed how antiracism ought to similarly operate at both levels. For example, in considering interpersonal racism, youth discussed racialized dynamics that arise in predominantly white workplaces such as the proliferation of racial microaggressions against YOC in both academic and health care settings. They provided antiracist responses to this at the interpersonal level, arguing for training on positionality and racial bias and for actively naming and responding to microaggressions in the workplace.
Similarly, youth demonstrated an understanding of structural racism by reflecting on how housing and community planning policies systematically disadvantaged people of color, prevented them from having access to affordable housing, and led to the emergence of food deserts where healthy foods were difficult to obtain or unaffordable as a result of gentrification. The youth’s proposed responses to structural racism included advocacy for policy and legal interventions that increase affordable housing options, universal health care, and healthy foods in communities of color.
We argue that this conceptualization of antiracism is congruent with Rozas and Miller (2009) concept of the “web of resistance,” or the notion that effective resistance to racism must occur at the intrapersonal, interpersonal, organizational, community, culture, and sociopolitical realms. Youths’ definitions of antiracism included the need for interventions on the intra- and inter-personal levels. This was evidenced by their commitment to identifying their own and others’ preconceptions or racial biases, as well as their active effort to participate in group discussion on racism and other forms of oppression, and how to best combat them (Miller & Garran, 2017; Rozas & Miller, 2009). Youth also discussed antiracism at the organizational level, arguing for the prioritization of people of color’s voices in defining their own problems and the solutions that are most pertinent to them (Miller & Garran, 2017). At the sociopolitical level, youth underscored the need for confronting and dismantling oppressive structures, codes, and policies (Miller & Garran, 2017). For instance, in a workshop where youth responded to the question “what does health or healthiness mean to you or your community,” all youth responses incorporated at least one social determinant of health, diverging from hegemonic narratives about health and individual responsibility.
Further, by asking the youth members to conceptualize and define antiracism and provide effective examples of it, we found that these youth actively engage in critical action (Aldana et al., 2019; Diemer et al., 2016; Watts et al., 2011) both in their day to day lives (for example, in confronting racist remarks from friends and colleagues, engaging in school activities to increase racial equity, and participating in protest) and within the YPAR project (identifying and responding to racist incidents or racialized dynamics). All in all, our findings for RQ1 demonstrate that the youth involved in this YPAR project reflect critically on antiracism as a construct, define it in both interpersonal and structural ways, and engage in antiracist critical action at the interpersonal level both within and outside of the YPAR project.
Our study also examined how youth members and adult allies conceptualize an antiracist YPAR project, and the strategies they use and recommend for facilitating an intentionally antiracist YPAR (RQ2). Both youth members and adult allies discussed the importance of prioritizing people of color in YPAR processes, but also dedicating enough time and resources for acknowledging and responding to positionality, racism, and racialized dynamics; engaging in ongoing preparation and education to work with youth and/or communities of color; and building community and trust by centering dialogue and reflection. With regards to the first strategy–prioritizing people of color– both the youth members and the adult allies on the project discussed the importance of hiring leaders and members of color in YPAR projects. Youth members sought to push the boundaries of representation by elevating communities of color’s voices within their YPAR research design.
In this project, this meant that the youth prioritized what they perceived to be their communities’ most pressing concerns on the US health care system, defined their research questions with the “most marginalized in mind,” and oriented their research project to elevate the voices and health care experiences of community members first and foremost. In doing so, youth leveraged the tool of research to center issues of concern to them and their communities, with the express aim of generating an effective, relevant, and timely health promotion campaign. Here, the youth practiced Pollock’s (2008) second and third principle of everyday antiracism: elevating people of color’s voices and validating and centering various forms of knowledge. The commitment to center the most marginalized in their research design demonstrates that the youth on this YPAR project possess an advanced critical consciousness on antiracism, both with regards to the critical reflection and action dimensions (Watts et al., 2011).
Our findings also demonstrate that the second antiracist strategy– acknowledging and responding to positionality, racialized dynamics, and racism– was prioritized and actively pursued by the youth members. While adult allies shared a similar sentiment, youth members actively created and cultivated the spaces to have critical discussions, from forming a group chat to holding space within their weekly virtual meetings.
During these discussions, youth reflected on the positionality of the project members, including the fact that the front-facing PIs of the project are white women. Although these conversations were happening at first only among the youth members, youth became more willing to identify and name racist or racialized incidents and to leverage their voices in discussions with adult allies as well. Youth members credited the increased willingness to do so to (a) active support from a youth consultant who often attended their weekly meetings and (b) to their own reflections during the key informant interview, and when they were asked to identify how one can create an intentionally antiracist YPAR. For example, one youth articulated that the posing of that question pushed her to be even more proactive in bringing racialized incidents to light than she otherwise would have been.
It is worth mentioning that although the youth members of the project clearly demonstrated both critical reflection and critical action in (a) defining antiracism, (b) conceptualizing an antiracist YPAR, and (c) leveraging strategies to make our YPAR project more antiracist, their perceptions of their political efficacy were less prominent. For instance, youth members appeared to have some reservations about their “capacity to effect social and political change via individual and/or collective activism” (Watts et al., 2011, p. 46). This was most apparent when youth named and discussed racialized project dynamics as a group, but hesitated to share their concerns with adult allies because they felt that they “did not have power in the situation.” Eventually, however, youth shared these concerns during key informant interviews, which they perceived as a space to reflect on and process antiracism.
Although scholars of critical consciousness argue that political efficacy or motivation are important precursors to critical action (Diemer et al., 2016; Watts et al., 2011), our findings demonstrate that youth actively engage in critical action even when they perceive their own political efficacy to be limited. In a study on youth antiracist engagement, Aldana et al. (2019) demonstrate that there is an insignificant relation between youth’s critical reflection on perceived inequality on the Critical Consciousness Scale (Diemer et al., 2016) and youths’ interpersonal action against racism on the Anti-Racism Action Scale. In our study, we found that youth engage in consistent critical reflection, as well as some critical action, but simultaneously make references to having limited political efficacy. This raises a number of questions on (a) the factors that contribute to varying levels of perceived political efficacy with regards to antiracism and (b) explanations for why antiracist critical action may take place even when YOC rarely reference or discuss their political efficacy or may perceive it to be limited.
With regards to the former, youth may perceive having limited political efficacy, or refrain from referencing their sense of efficacy, as a result of the demoralizing effect of racism, especially during a racially charged sociopolitical climate. Scholars have documented a similar disempowerment effect in the context of neighborhoods that feel unsafe to YOC, or within contexts where sociopolitical action may pose both positive and negative impacts on youths’ mental health (Anyiwo et al., 2020; Wray-Lake & Abrams, 2020). Similarly, in a case study on a school-based service intervention on health equity designed to engage middle-school-aged YOC, Sprague Martinez et al. (2017) found negative change in some youth empowerment measures between the beginning and end of the intervention.
Taken together, these findings and our study suggest that while YPAR contexts may increase youth empowerment or sense of efficacy in some cases, exposure to knowledge on systemic racism, as well as racialized dynamics within the project and in society writ large, may contribute to a reduced sense of political efficacy (Sprague Martinez et al., 2017). These effects may also be influenced by current events, exacerbating youths’ perceptions that people of color’s individual and collective level responses have little to no efficacy given the repeated police killings of Black people, as well as the ongoing disproportionate impact of COVID19 on communities of color (Fortuna et al., 2020; Staggers-Hakim, 2016). Regardless, youth may continue to prioritize antiracist critical action despite a limited sense of efficacy due to the perceived urgency of combating racism. Threatened with the severe consequences of systemic racism, youth feel compelled to affect change and are taking actions toward it, even when they believe some of their efforts to be marginal or potentially futile. Another explanation for the gap between youths’ sense of efficacy and youths’ critical action may be the power of engaging in collective action. Simply stated, youth may perceive a limited sense of individual efficacy, but feel more empowered to identify and confront racism when acting as a group.
Regardless of their references at times to a more limited sense of political efficacy, our study clearly demonstrates that it is the youth members of this YPAR project who pushed the boundaries of our antiracist considerations and practices. For example, youth demonstrated political efficacy by creating spaces to reflect on project dynamics, engaging in actively processing racialized dynamics, increasingly naming incidents of racism and microaggressions, interrogating the project priorities, and compelling adult allies to follow their lead. These instances suggest that the construct of political efficacy—in theory and in measurement—needs to capture both how youth perceive or describe their political efficacy, as well as how they enact it. In this sense, engaging in critical action itself is a form of enacted political efficacy.
Such instances also indicate that YPAR projects can indeed promote bidirectional critical reflection, learning, and action, where youth can compel adults to re-examine the assumptions and relational dynamics that the adults have come to take for granted, normalize, and/or perpetuate. While scholars have investigated how YPAR learning influences youths’ actions and trajectories outside of the YPAR context (Anyon et al., 2018; Ozer, 2017), less has been written on the effect of YPAR participation on adult allies. Further research is needed to study the effects of YPAR participation on adult allies and their critical consciousness.
Finally, with regards to the antiracist strategies of ongoing education and reflection/dialogue to facilitate an intentionally antiracist YPAR, our findings suggest that these practices should both occur in preparation and at the onset of the project, and continue as intentional, iterative, and reflexive practices throughout the phases of the YPAR. These recommendations point to the need for an institutional reconsideration of YPAR projects, especially ones that seek to be intentionally antiracist. Such projects ought to be slower-paced and extend for longer periods of time, with robust preparation and orientation protocols. In addition, it is vital for antiracist YPAR projects to be punctuated with space for reflection and processing, allowing all racialized dynamics to be named and responded to within a cohesive group.
Limitations and Implications
This study suggests that YOC participating in this project have a sophisticated understanding of antiracism. However, one of the limitations of our study is that these findings are limited to this particular group of youth engaged in a YPAR context, and thus cannot be generalized to larger populations. Regardless, our results raise questions worth asking: where does youth public consciousness in the US fall with regards to issues of race and racism during this sociopolitical climate? Are youths’ conceptualizations of antiracism—in terms of scope and scale—congruent with their understandings of racism? Replication of similar studies with YOC across various contexts may provide us with a more comprehensive understanding of youths’ critical consciousness on antiracism, and how it compares to their conception of racism as a social problem.
Further, while the youth in our subsample show advanced critical reflection and some critical action on antiracism as a construct and praxis within the project and in their personal lives, their narratives suggest that they perceive limited political efficacy compared to the other two dimensions of critical consciousness. This raises the question on the nature of the relation between political efficacy and critical action, and provides one example where political efficacy may not be a necessary precursor for critical action. However, the gap between the youths’ perceived sense of political efficacy and their willingness to engage in critical action may be explained by the power of collective action—a practice that is facilitated and nurtured by the YPAR context where youth participants get to know each other intimately and over an extended period of time (Anyon et al., 2018; Ozer, 2017).
Further, this research on youths’ definitions of antiracism, as well as youth members’ and adult allies’ antiracist recommendations for YPAR methods, is a snapshot in time. Larger longitudinal studies are needed to understand youth conceptions of antiracism (Aldana et al., 2019) and the factors and contexts that contribute to the formation of this critical consciousness, beyond the YPAR context. Such research is needed not only to understand the current diffusion of sociopolitical rhetoric and antiracist principles among US youth, but also to develop pedagogical interventions that compel individuals to shift from simply understanding the problem (systemic racism), to examining the solutions that they can personally and collectively undertake.
Finally, we acknowledge that our own identities and positionalities play a central role in our analysis and reflection on the conceptualization, definitions, and recommendations for an intentionally antiracist YPAR. To the extent possible, we engage the YPAR team (both youth members and adult allies) from diverging backgrounds throughout the phases of our research: problem definition, research instrument design, data collection and analysis, and manuscript preparation. However, we recognize that due to structural factors—including time and financial constraints— the youth members participated to a lesser extent in these processes than the adult allies, potentially influencing our conclusions. Further research and practice should examine how the socialization of researchers into larger systems within academia is disrupted and informed, or not, by youth and community input, as well as self-directed critical reflection on antiracism. In the current climate of renewed focus on challenging the racial status quo, researchers must consider these power differentials within YPAR or community engaged research to effectively facilitate more racially equitable projects.
Conclusion
In this study, we demonstrate that YOC participating in this YPAR project have complex and multifaceted understandings of both racism and antiracism, at the interpersonal and structural levels. With regards to strategies for facilitating intentionally antiracist YPAR projects, our findings highlight the need to respond to people of color’s calls for effective antiracism by engaging in reflexive processes, and making institutional changes that account for the time, space, and human resources needed to engage in antiracist YPAR projects. This effort requires designing and executing projects that prioritize people of color in hiring, membership, and content; acknowledging team members’ positionalities and any racialized dynamics that may arise; and committing to ongoing education and dialogue on antiracist theory and praxis.
Footnotes
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: This publication was supported by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, National Institutes of Health, through BU-CTSI Grant Number 1UL1TR001430. Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the NIH. The authors have no conflict(s) of interest to disclose.
