Embracing problems,processes,and contact zones: Using youth participatory action research to challenge adultism

YPAR overview

YPAR stems from participatory action research (PAR). To provide context, the following section describes the nature of YPAR as both a research method and a theoretical construct. As YPAR utilizes communities of adult and adolescent researchers rather than traditional participants, I use the term adult researcher here to signify individuals who typically serve as primary investigators in academic contexts and lead projects (e.g., faculty, graduate students, community leaders). In contrast, the term youth researchers implies individuals under the age of 18 who are engaged in collaborative inquiry.

PAR is defined as “an empirical methodological approach in which people directly affected by a problem under investigation engage as co-researchers in the research process, which includes action, or intervention, into the problem” (Rodriguez & Brown, 2009, p. 23). In YPAR, the people affected by the problem are youth. As a result, YPAR necessitates that adult and youth researchers work together to investigate key issues and provide solutions. Youth possess expert knowledge rooted in their lived experiences with the contexts of the study (Cannella, 2008; Rodriguez & Brown, 2009). Adult researchers bring knowledge of important elements of the research process and social contexts (Grace & Langhout, 2014). In YPAR, the perspectives of all stakeholders are necessary to create a rich product (Scott et al., 2014). Scholars disagree as to the extent of ownership of a project that youth researchers must possess for a project to truly be considered YPAR, and definitions vary from full ownership (Ozer & Wright, 2012) to engagement in any facet of the research process (Langhout & Thomas, 2010). While specific roles may vary, the expectation that YPAR is rooted in power sharing and participation is a key element across projects (Rodriguez & Brown, 2009).

As a conceptual framework, YPAR serves to interweave notions of activism and inquiry (Kirshner, Pozzoboni, & Jones, 2011) by subverting traditional systems of research conducted on marginalized groups that benefit academia while providing little service to participants (Cannella, 2008). In YPAR, youth and adult researchers work together to understand and change social injustices. With this directive, YPAR operates without the guise of neutrality. One definition that makes the positionality of YPAR particularly evident was provided by Tuck et al. (2008), a collaborative project that took place in New York City. They described YPAR “as politic-an embedded and outloud critique of colonization, racism, misogyny, homophobia and heterosexism, classism, and xenophobia in our society, in our research sites, among our research collective, and within the larger and historical research community” (p. 51). Fine (2008) added to the conceptualization of YPAR by labeling the approach as an epistemology rather than a research method. As such, utilizing YPAR often draws upon researcher positionality and skill sets aimed at disrupting social norms through critical analysis.

Background context

My interest in YPAR stems from my own research experiences. Most notably, I served as a research assistant for a two-year ethnographic case study at a career and technical education high school between 2015 and 2017. The project involved a collaboration between a team of four members, two faculty, and two graduate assistants, at a large public research university (Research University; RU) and Hillside Technical High School (HTHS). The project involved one year in which the RU faculty (lead instructors) and doctoral students (teaching assistants) taught an English Language Arts class to 16 students from primarily Latinx backgrounds, focusing on culturally relevant pedagogy and critical awareness. During the course, the students also identified a YPAR topic to pursue on the manifestations and impact of the school-to-prison pipeline in their high school. The students did some research on disciplinary action in their school, practiced research skills, and developed a method of data collection for the project. The project culminated in interviews with staff and students involved in a behavioral program at HTHS. During the second year, the RU team continued to stay involved with the students to support their college and career planning.

In addition to this project, I served as a research assistant to a separate PAR project with a group of college students enrolled in a course about disability in education during the fall of 2016. Although no longer considered exclusively “youth,” the course comprised a comparable group of traditionally aged first-year college students aged 17 to 19 years. The PAR project, originally conceptualized to focus on disability allyship, culminated with in-class interviews with peers about how disability was perceived on campus. Both projects provided unique opportunities for the students involved, though neither culminated in a full report or public presentation as YPAR is often depicted. In this article, I draw upon these experiences as well as contemporary literature to consider how YPAR can challenge adultism embedded within research norms and reconceptualize the nature of research in this context.

Theoretical frameworks of YPAR

In this section, I look at the ways in which YPAR work is framed to challenge deficit models regarding youth. Such viewpoints contradict the traditional unidirectional education system in which adults are perceived as authorities. Instead, youth possess knowledge and attributes that make collaborative research mutually beneficial across participants.

Both of the PAR projects I worked with relied on the youth involved as those with insider knowledge to address the research questions at hand. At HTHS, the participants in the class directly experienced and witnessed the impact of the disciplinary system on the academic success of themselves and their peers. In thinking about disability allyship, the students in the class provided in-depth perspectives as to how the concept disability was understood on campus. In both cases, participants had a perspective directly related to the phenomenon under examination. Thus, thinking of PAR as a symbiotic relationship where both adult and youth researchers can coinvestigate and cocreate knowledge was crucial to the survival of both projects.

Asset-oriented views of youth

YPAR builds upon the work of Freire (1970) in challenging traditional conventions of education and justice to advocate for equal power dynamics across constituents. The value placed on youth knowledge and experiences with YPAR align with Freire’s critique of the traditional banking model of education, which views students as empty vessels relegated to receiving, filing, and storing deposits of knowledge made by teachers. As an alternative, Freire advocates for a problem-posing style of education that positions students as critical coinvestigators with teachers who create shared meaning and understanding. This view of education ties into Freire’s larger framework of social justice, which advocates for power with, rather than power over, marginalized groups. YPAR models rely on the contributions and insight attained by student researchers. In contrast to traditional research that has been used to exploit marginalized communities (Tuck et al., 2008), YPAR emphasizes democratizing knowledge, fostering critical inquiry of daily life, and developing liberatory practices (Ginwright, 2008). Participants move from objects of study into subjects that work together to create change (Freire, 1970). Using this model, YPAR is framed as a venue for liberation through transformative change.

An important addition to Freire’s (1970) framework expands upon the background and resources which marginalized populations bring to research. Building on critical race theory (Solórzano, 1997; Solórzano & Delgado Bernal, 2001; Solórzano & Yosso, 2001) to challenge deficit perspectives placed upon communities of color, Yosso (2005) created a model of community culture wealth. The model emphasizes the assets these communities possess in six forms of capital across aspirational, linguistic, familial, social, navigational, and resistance. This model is applicable to a YPAR context in which youth utilize their perspective, skills, and connections to enhance awareness and generate solutions. These forms of capital often take the form of social and navigational capital in which “those who have been most systematically excluded, oppressed, or denied carry specifically revealing wisdom” (Fine, 2008, p. 215). In YPAR, youth have the social connections to engage with the community experiencing the problem and the navigational prowess to maneuver within complex, oppressive systems. The focus on social change shows resistance capital in which youth leverage an emic, or insider, perspective to transform injustice (Gaventa & Cornwall, 2001). Community cultural wealth complements the idea of power with by illustrating more specifically what strengths those communities possess.

Adultism and youth oppression

I position the ideas regarding the agency of marginalized populations within the discourse on the systems of oppression against children. Bell (2010) defined adultism as “behaviors and attitudes based on the assumption that adults are better than young people, and entitled to act upon young people without their agreement. This mistreatment is reinforced by social institutions, laws, customs, and attitudes” (p. 540). The term is used synonymously with youth oppression (DeJong & Love, 2015). Adultism is rooted in consistent patterns of disrespect and mistreatment that can cause young people to feel powerless, disrespected, and dismissed. Youth are viewed at a deficit or treated as deviants with such pervasiveness that these perspectives become internalized and reproduced (Conner, Ober, & Brown, 2016). Such dynamics can also perpetuate other forms of oppression, as “young people’s first encounters with sexism, racism, and other relationships of domination and subordination occur when they have little power to change things, and no language to name their experience of oppression” (DeJong & Love, 2015, p. 494). Thus, adultism can serve as a catalyst to socialize youth into larger systems of social inequality if not challenged.

YPAR can perpetuate adultism in situations where youth involvement is tokenized or used by adults to gain credit without actual impact or consideration (Conner et al., 2016). However, where true partnerships exist, YPAR work utilizes the resources and power bestowed on adults by society to create transformative change (DeJong & Love, 2015). For example, for Youth of Color, YPAR can serve as a forum through which to resist racism in daily life and facilitate empowerment (Hope, Skoog, & Jagers, 2015; Irizarry, 2011; Livingstone, Celemencki, & Calixte, 2014). However, to oppose these systems of disenfranchisement, youth need to be trusted as equal stakeholders and valued for their contributions. Models of youth liberation share power and decision-making, acknowledging the knowledge and contributions that youth provide (Kivel, 2010). YPAR naturally opposes adultist dynamics because it frames youth as intelligent and capable individuals with power and options (Cammarota & Fine, 2008). Within YPAR, there are also complementary relationships as youth develop skills to organize for social change and tools to name injustice from adults as they provide a unique perspective (Cammarota & Fine, 2008). Thus, enhancing YPAR practice may lead to greater resources for marginalized communities in need of support and resources.

YPAR as a tool for liberation

In this section, I argue that YPAR can serve as a vehicle through which to challenge traditionally oppressive, adultist research norms. Three perspectives illustrate the ways in which adult researchers can engage in YPAR work to pursue liberatory relationships. One perspective frames the collaboration between adults and youth as a contact zone (Pratt, 1991; Torre et al., 2008), which necessitates an active commitment to working through manifestations of social inequalities within research teams. A second perspective examines how adult researchers can prioritize problem-posing education over a banking system of education (Freire, 1970) in ways that provide scaffolding and support. Finally, a third perspective suggests that the goal of YPAR may not be the clear creation and dissemination of a final product in traditional formats (e.g., papers or presentations; Whitmore & McKee, 2001). Instead, the process of engaging in collaborative research is often an outcome unto itself that can support iterative growth and learning across demographics. These perspectives provide a way to ensure intentional, student-centered approaches to YPAR work.

Contact zones

Pratt (1991) first defined the concept of contact zones as “social spaces where cultures meet, clash, and grapple with each other, often in contexts of highly asymmetrical relations of power, such as colonialism, slavery or their aftermaths as they are lived out in many parts of the world today” (p. 34). In these spaces, participants understand that their actions will have heterogeneous, unpredictable impacts on others. As a result, contact zones provide crucial spaces for individuals to work with and through the issues of difference (Miller, 1994).

Torre et al. (2008) adapted the definition of contact zones within a YPAR context to serve as spaces “where very differently positioned youth and adults are able to experience and analyze power inequities, together” (p. 24). Rather than assuming that it is possible to create an environment free from the larger social systems within which it operates, framing YPAR as a contact zone ensures that researchers center the issues of privilege and oppression within collaborations. The goal of a contact zone is to actively engage dynamics of power and privilege as an impetus for learning. Rather than proposing that a YPAR project operates within a vacuum from systems of oppression, the contact zone framework uses the YPAR space as a learning laboratory to examine the ways that social and cultural contests manifest on an individual level. The resulting impact is that YPAR communities must engage in constant and active deconstruction of privilege. Within my own experiences, I often found myself examining the systems of ageism, racism, or ableism in which I had privilege, and several youth participants were marginalized. Rather than trying to negate that privilege, the PAR teams that I was a part of strove to discuss how identity played a role in the collaborative spaces and to engage in those dynamics as part of our shared experience.

Past YPAR studies illustrate how the concept of a contact zone can be useful to understand how negotiation and understanding occurs among the participants. In one example, youth researchers challenged the adults who had pursued a YPAR project in their community, arguing that adult researchers had perceived their experience to be at a deficit and thus sought out the initial collaboration (Walsh, Hewson, Shier, & Morales, 2008). For issues of adultism, the contact zone framework would expect that social bias and stigma against youth would be present in the adult researchers engaged in YPAR due to the presence of those factors within society. Thus, adult researchers are not expected to be void of socialization prior to beginning a YPAR project. Instead, projects exist to give participants a chance to unlearn systems of oppression through negotiation with one another (Cannella, 2008). If adults and youth are equal members within a YPAR space, then both are assumed to enter with biases and prejudices to be unpacked. This negotiation then influences the research process and role models the ways in which “youth and adult researchers generate varied interpretations of many sorts of empirical materials, and together try to determine the contours, the consequences, and the vulnerabilities of unjust formations” (Fine, 2008, p. 222). Engaging in a contact zone may require that adult researchers, such as youth, renegotiate their sense of self and undergo individual transformation.

Problem-posing education

One tenet of action research is that uncertainty is central to the nature of doing work (Brydon-Miller, Greenwood, & Maguire, 2003). The focus of action research broadly, and YPAR specifically, is the process of engaging in inquiry. Grappling with uncertainty directly aligns with Freire’s (1970) idea of problem-posing education. This focus “affirms men and women as being in the process of becoming-as unfinished, uncompleted beings in and with a likewise unfinished reality” (p. 84). Problem-posing may be analogous to an emphasis on critical consciousness raising, described by Smith, Davis, and Bhowmik (2010) as dialogue that “facilitates students’ ability to examine and critique self-blaming cultural narratives, thereby supporting their emotional well-being and self-empowerment” (p. 180). In this way, recognizing YPAR as an opportunity for problem-posing education gives participants the chance to challenge adultism and to collectively negotiate shared understandings.

Problem-posing education is directly at odds with the banking model present in many educational systems (Freire, 1970) and provides a direct example of where youth and adults can collectively work together to challenge systems of adultism. While some YPAR scholars use the term apprenticeship to describe the process through which adults mentor youth through the research process (Kirshner et al., 2011; Morrell, 2008), such labeling continues to frame the relationship as a unidirectional transfer of knowledge. Instead, framing YPAR as problem-posing education acknowledges that different participants bring their skill sets, experiences, and goals to the process. Adult researchers contribute resources, trainings, and structure while youth researchers provide knowledge and perspective. Previous examples of YPAR projects highlighted ways in which adult researchers offered overviews of research methods or tools to support youth researchers, utilizing their knowledge to provide foundational knowledge for collective dialogue and decision-making (Torre et al., 2008; Tuck et al., 2008). Simultaneously, youth benefit from the opportunity to challenge systems of oppression that frame their experience and to renegotiate relationships with adults (Rodriguez & Brown, 2009).

In my experience, PAR spaces were often a place to help youth researchers connect their lived experiences with national trends, social and cultural systems, and academic language. At HTHS, our predominantly Latinx participants actively examined a social context that included racial biases in everything from school conduct policies to the campaign statements of then presidential candidate Donald Trump. As an adult reserarcher, I was able to rethink my own assumptions about the goals of education and what classroom norms “should” be, challenging my understandings of things such as curriculum and accountability to center a more shared construction. The resulting research and shared experience offered a more complete picture than a solitary adult researcher could obtain (Brydon-Miller et al., 2003). Thus, a problem-posing approach allows diverse stakeholders to engage with an equitable educational process while unlearning systems of oppression.

Process, not product

In order for YPAR to truly challenge adultism, the process of YPAR should be valued more highly than traditional academic metrics (e.g., peer-reviewed articles, conference presentations, grant funding). Just as Freire (1970) noted that successful liberation promotes individual development over possessions, YPAR should not be bound to prove its merit through the traditional written report or other academic formats (Heron & Reason, 2001). Instead, the YPAR process requires a complete reconceptualization of traditional research (Fine, 2008), particularly in supporting participants as they unlearn internalized youth oppression. YPAR may not result in a clear product (Cannella, 2008), instead spurring less tangible manifestations, such as the self-growth and awareness of participants (Cammarota & Fine, 2008; Morrell, 2008). Instead of pushing participants toward a specific destination, YPAR is often seen as a significant landmark on a path that may support future opportunities and development. The approach of YPAR supports the mission of action research in challenging “an objective, value-free approach to knowledge generation in favor of an explicitly political, socially engaged, and democratic practice” (Brydon-Miller et al., 2003, p. 13).

In emphasizing process over product, flexibility must form the foundation of YPAR work. For example, groups may need to adjust deadlines and goals to allow for the organic development and evolution of research groups. Flexible time limits prevent the likelihood that adult researchers will revert to adultist norms such as a strict agenda or procedure that is not cocreated, resulting in power imbalance (Whitmore & McKee, 2001). Flexibility is also important because even perceived failures support learning. Through collaborative research, groups can process setbacks and interpret them while still celebrating other achievements (Cannella, 2008). Focusing on the process of YPAR rather than a product allows for researchers to engage with youth authentically while challenging the expectation that a peer-reviewed publication is the only metric of value. Of the two PAR projects I worked with, one resulted in publications (see Morales, Bettencourt, Green & George Mwangi, 2017) while the other did not. However, both provided meaningful opportunities to the participants involved and helped me as a scholar to reconsider my own approaches and goals to research.

Key conditions of YPAR

After establishing several ways in which YPAR can operate in opposition to societal dynamics of adultism, I now advocate for several conditions to support YPAR projects in challenging adultist dynamics. These conditions frame the many barriers that adult researchers face as socially constructed and create shared accountability for creating change. In order to deconstruct these barriers, adults must first be willing to challenge traditional norms of scholarship and engage in work that may be dismissed by the academy. Second, adult researchers must commit to a process of ethical reflexivity by engaging in self-work around the privilege they possess in systems of youth oppression. Finally, adult researchers must prioritize a youth-centered design that can meet the needs of various participants. While these suggestions target individuals, they also include collective and institutional measures.

Challenging research norms

While action research transcends beyond academic contexts, there are specific challenges of conducting YPAR research connected to postsecondary institutions. Most prevalently, YPAR does not easily fit into the traditional systems of academic rewards, which prioritize peer-reviewed publication as the primary conduit for academic success for faculty and graduate students (Slaughter & Rhoads, 2004; Webber, 2011). Instead, the nontraditional returns and political nature of YPAR may be risky based on individuals’ positions within the academy (Fine, 2008; Rodriguez & Brown, 2009). Many elements within YPAR align closely with service and teaching components of faculty positions, which receive minimal recognition and value within academia (Fine, 2008). Cannella (2008) captures the tensions of choosing to do YPAR work within traditional academic structures:

The choices PAR practitioners make often sacrifice the easier ways of doing their work-youth development, research, teaching-in favor of an approach that embodies their ideals. This work is unwelcome in many circles, in which the mandate is to ensure youth development programs can verify their intended “outcomes” are attained, and research is “scientifically based.” These narrowly defined requirements can be hard to extract from the fabulously complicated work (p. 189).

Moreover, research is increasingly driven by the need to acquire grant funding (Webber, 2011). Like peer-reviewed publications, grant funding as an indicator of success can create tensions regarding YPAR work. PAR projects run the risk of being co-opted by institutions looking for performative ways to show constituent buy-in rather than true collaboration (Gaventa & Cornwall, 2001). For youth researchers, such exploitation reinforces adultism rather than providing an appropriate challenge. Some scholars suggest that to be ethical, researchers might have to move away from the agenda of a funding organization or institution (Walsh et al., 2008). However, funding also provides important resources to recruit participants and enable their participation (Cahill, Rios-Moore, & Threatts, 2008; Whitmore & McKee, 2001). In some cases, funding may provide the crucial component that allows a YPAR study to occur. Adult researchers must grapple with the costs and benefits of institutional influence on YPAR and make choices that are in best service of youth, a challenge that can be amplified by individual positionality and resources (most notably, tenure).

Just as YPAR is collective process, so too are the ways to challenge and reconstruct research norms. One suggestion is that senior scholars use their voices to amplify the contributions of colleagues engaging in YPAR projects that may not result in the traditional products. For example, Fine (2008) shared her experiences writing letters of support for the tenure files of colleagues engaged in YPAR work, explaining the type of work and its importance. Not only do these projects connect to both research and service priorities but directly connect to the values of access and social justice listed by many institutional mission and diversity statements as well. Furthermore, faculty experts sit on the review boards for grant proposals and can advocate for peers by illuminating the value of such work. In these regards, building alliances is particularly valuable across the academy to promote and sustain YPAR work. I was fortunate to work on teams with other adult researchers in both PAR contexts who served as spaces to process the dynamics within our projects. This community was also helpful to finding outlets to share the work in different ways, such as the special interest group on School/University/Community Collaborative Research within the American Educational Research Association. This example emphasizes that as YPAR transcends postsecondary contexts to involve youth, schools, and community groups, researchers can collaborate across these contexts to pool resources and enhance the visibility of YPAR contributions.

Reflexivity

To negotiate the tensions between scholar and activist roles present in action research (Brydon-Miller et al., 2003), individuals must engage in constant reflexivity. The idea of reflexivity has long been studied as a core tenant within qualitative research (Berger, 2015; Guillemin & Gillam, 2004; Robertson, 2000). Reflexivity is defined as “a process of critical reflection both on the kind of knowledge produced from research and how that knowledge is generated” (Guillemin & Gillam, 2004, p. 274). While reflexivity is commonly used to guarantee rigor in qualitative designs, it is crucial to ensure ethical conduct at every stage of the research process (Guillemin & Gillam, 2004). Engagement in reflexivity may change based on their position within research and how close the topic of study is to one’s personal experiences (Berger, 2015). Reflexivity demands that researchers prioritize a mutually beneficial process guided by all members of the group (Robertson, 2000).

Ideas of accountability and reflexivity are central to conducting research with marginalized groups (Snow et al., 2016). One area largely absent from the literature is the idea that adult researchers must engage in reflexivity to challenge potential adultism within YPAR work. For example, many PAR researchers move on after the completion of their study while the community members effected by the research problem become increasingly aware of the issues but continue to lack the resources to provide solutions (Walsh et al., 2008). In this situation, institutional or academic norms do not facilitate continued engagement. Sustained relationships are valuable only as additional sources of data.

Ethical development on behalf of the adult researcher is crucial to navigate the creation of research that does not further injustice. Qualitative research has several tools that promote such reflexivity, often drawn upon to ensure quality during data collection and analysis. When applied to YPAR, these tools can help to ensure that adult researchers engage intentionally in ways that challenge and disrupt adultism. For example, peer debriefing can ensure that communities of YPAR researchers routinely discuss challenges and experiences to provide feedback and accountability. The act of writing memos may provide an opportunity to reflect individually, while an audit trail can log choices made throughout the research process to ensure intentionality and transparency. While these techniques have long been applied to concerns about trustworthiness within qualitative research (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), explicitly using them to address adultism and youth oppression provides new utility. Simultaneously, changes in institutional reward structures and prioritization, such as internal funding resources, courses releases, or research leaves, can support researchers doing this difficult, unrecognized work.

Such reflexivity also supports the creation of genuine relationships through the YPAR process. Freire (1970) describes the importance of humanizing pedagogy rooted in relationships between teachers and students. Even in challenging adultism, youth need guidance, love, discipline, and teaching (Bell, 2010). In YPAR, students may be more committed and work harder when they perceive caring and supportive teachers (Livingstone et al., 2014). For adult researchers, engaging in reflexivity supports being authentic and open. Such an approach can role model collaboration in the YPAR process and help to support a clear commitment and engagement with such communities.

In my own experience, reflexive practice ensured that I was regularly considering my own position in the classroom. As the lone White member of the teaching team at HTHS, I regularly thought about my racial privilege in that environment. At the same time, there were opportunities to use my own positionality, such as engaging with one student who identified as White in class to model how to engage in race and racism. In thinking about disability allyship, I reflected often upon the ways in which my own leadership might reinforce ableism or that I might speak over individuals with disabilities. Such reflexivity encouraged me to modify my instruction and to incorporate principles of universal design for learning to support greater diversity among learners. Although a constantly evolving process, such considerations challenged me to be a more responsive and engaged researcher.

Youth-centered design

Finally, researchers can challenge hegemonic norms by acknowledging that youth may be in different development stages or possess unique research goals. Thus, creating a design that can be adapted to diverse participant needs is crucial. Such processes should involve a collective dialogue to decide on action, implementation, and improvement (DeJong & Love, 2015). Resources such as the YPAR Hub at UC Berkeley (UC Regents, 2015) offer different tools and materials to draw upon to approach collaborations. These tools include agendas to guide group processes such as setting ground rules, to explain research broadly and YPAR in particular, and to train students in a variety of research skills ranging across focus groups, surveys, and photovoice. In addition, empowering youth to embrace leadership within collaborations offers an opportunity to dismantle adultism while promoting individual development.

Moreover, all participants do not need to be involved in YPAR in the same way to be equal contributors. As a youth researcher in a study by Tuck et al. (2008) noted, “fantasies that people might have about PAR, especially among youth, is that we all have to be the same and do everything the same way. PAR isn’t synchronized swimming!” (p. 68). Rather than a homogenous experience, PAR is messy and acknowledges that participants do not learn in the same way (Cannella, 2008). In my own experience, this meant that some participants were more invested in the overall PAR project while others resonated with only specific aspects of the projects, such as data collection. In addition, the YPAR project that I was a part of at HTHS was very different than those occurring at other high schools in the Hillside community, which took place at alternative locations and within other formats (e.g., alternative courses; after school involvement). However, for the needs of the students involved, our project facilitated a way to further and engage with critical thinking skills about their school and community in ways that were still valuable, particularly in using their knowledge of the school-to-prison pipeline to think about discipline in their own school.

As YPAR seeks to engage participants in a variety of educational undertakings, specific tasks may look different for the youth in question. While youth remain active producers of their own development, the growth in emotional management, motivation, and agency depends on the individual student (Larson, 2011). A key aspect of YPAR is to find ways to customize projects not only within youth research groups but also across participants in ways that allow them to embrace their identity as constructors of knowledge (Cannella, 2008). As a tool to truly challenge adultism, using an approach that centers equity (e.g., giving participants the tools they need) over equality (e.g., giving every participant the same tools) ensures that students receive what they need to be successful. In my own work, this involved teaching youth researchers how to utilize different research methods, such as interviews, and to find relevant information. If the goal of YPAR is to challenge societal hegemony, individual groups must reflect a similar prioritization of heterogeneity and inclusion.

Conclusion

Adult supremacy is “comprised of a set of beliefs, attitudes, policies, and practices that construct adults as developed, mature, intelligent, and experienced, based solely on their age and ensures that adults control the resources and make the decisions in society” (DeJong & Love, 2015, p. 490). In the United States, adult supremacy fosters exploitive relationships in which youth’s voices are marginalized or tokenized. While YPAR projects can challenge adultism, these collaborations may never truly have completely equal power sharing between adults and youth (Rodriguez & Brown, 2009). It is unrealistic to think that an individual community can exist in complete isolation from the social and cultural dynamics within which it operates. However, in framing YPAR as a process through which systems of oppression manifest and provide opportunities for collaborative deconstruction, adult researchers can work with youth to engage in resistance and empowerment. Framing YPAR as a contact zone (Pratt, 1991; Torre et al., 2008), problem-posing education (Freire, 1970), and process allows for youth researchers to gain the skills and practice necessary to address social inequalities across various spheres.

Throughout this piece, I have argued for changes that can occur at individual, collective, and institutional levels to support YPAR work in countering adultist norms in research. Adult researchers can work to actively incorporate reflexivity into their practice. Collectively, researchers can share resources among one another to support a youth-centered developmental approach and to champion the value and realities of YPAR work within the academic community. At an institutional level, resources can be allotted to support the time and energy required to do YPAR work and provide recognition to the ways such endeavors support espoused values beyond rigid peer-reviewed articles. As such approaches and skills may be absent from traditional research training, action researchers should seek out communities to provide education, support, and development (Brydon-Miller et al., 2003 ). Engaging in targeted efforts will help support the impact of YPAR in reaching broader audiences while making such work sustainable and visible.