From Being a Workforce to Agents of Change: An Interpretive Meta-ethnography of Different Approaches to Participatory Research With Young People

PAR: A Political and Scholarly Movement

PAR had multiple beginnings (Molano, 1998) and has certainly not been an exclusively academic endeavor but has been strongly inspired by various social and political movements of marginalized communities resisting forms of domination and oppression around the globe (Caraballo et al., 2017; Mirra et al., 2015). For example, in England in the 1960s, action research emerged as a curricular intervention to democratize teacher agency in the classroom (Elliot, 1991; Stenhouse, 1968; Willis, 1978); in Tanzania, PAR was first formed in the 1970s through cooperation between local and international researchers and villagers to challenge and later influence governmental policies in rural areas (Swantz, 2008); and in Latin America, PAR projects have been developed and implemented with the goals of adult education and political action, sparking political protests and the formation of political movements (Fals-Borda, 1987; Freire, 1970). An example of such a popular education project in the United States is the Highlander School, which trained civil rights leaders through a PAR approach (Cammarota & Fine, 2008). In these contexts, PAR has emerged from critiques of colonial scholarship, and imperialistic history, as well as ongoing neocolonialist and neoliberal projects that led both researchers and participants to form alliances and forge academic and everyday knowledge to challenge oppressive policies based on the local people’s political demands and needs (Swantz, 2008).

Over the years, academics have conceptualized an abundance of approaches to participative inquiry, including action research (Lewin, 1946), action science (Argyris et al., 1985), action inquiry (Torbert, 1991), participatory action research (Fals-Borda & Rahman, 1991), or cooperative inquiry (Heron & Reason, 1997). While PAR is not essentially affiliated with any particular discipline or political orientation, these approaches share a common critique and extension of traditional research by acknowledging that research includes a level of epistemic and political participation (Heron & Reason, 1997). According to Heron and Reason (1997), epistemic participation means that the study’s outcome is based on researchers’ and participants’ experiential knowledge, while political participation frames research subjects’ basic human right to fully participate in the research design. Fals-Borda (1987) summarized the goal of PAR as the disruption of the dichotomies of theory and practice; of academic, intellectual, and everyday knowledge; as well as of the researcher and the researched.

Heron and Reason (1997) categorized PAR under a new participatory paradigm, expanding on Guba and Lincoln’s (1994) competing paradigms of inquiry or “worldviews” that guide researchers’ ontological, epistemological, and methodological choices. Influenced by this work, Creswell and Poth (2016) outlined a transformative framework for participatory inquiry, which includes four dimensions: (a) ontological—participation between researchers and participants (usually from marginalized groups); (b) epistemological—multiple ways of knowing that are cocreated, and the recognition that knowledge is not neutral but reflects power relations in society; (c) axiological—the problematization and interrogation of values as well as respect for indigenous values; and (d) methodological—the use of collaborative research processes that aim towards political participation. PAR’s axiological orientation towards change and transformation, as opposed to gaining knowledge as an end, makes it different from other forms of inquiry (Heron & Reason, 1997). It extends constructivist and postpositivist research paradigms by requiring research to be responsive to the needs of marginalized communities, inclusive of their experiential knowledge, and to support political action (Creswell & Poth, 2016; Heron & Reason, 1997).

Its primary goal of social change is a critical defining element for PAR (Walter, 2009) as the approach encourages shifting research from a micro-level initiative to macro-level political action (Fals-Borda, 1991). Writing mainly about social movements in the global South, Rahman (1991) argued that PAR has emerged partly due to people’s disillusionment with official political parties whose political actions have, despite social progress, created new forms of domination over the masses. This has triggered a rethinking of the meaning of social transformation as something that does not only need to be rooted in control over the means of material production but also in the generation of knowledge, specifically the power to determine “what is useful knowledge” (Rahman, 1991, p. 14). Fals-Borda (1991) defined authentic participation as “rooted in cultural traditions of the common people and their real history (not the elitist version)” (p. 9), constituting a break from the asymmetrical relationship of submission and dependence between participants and researchers. By recognizing that “real” social change and political action can only be grounded in the people’s own consciousness and knowledge, PAR seeks to return to the people the legitimacy of their knowledge and their right to use this knowledge in addition to other (scientific) knowledge as a guide for their own action (Rahman, 1991). Through these processes of conscientization and social inquiry (Freire, 1970), participants and researchers seek to achieve their shared goal of social transformation (Fals-Borda, 1991). Since the knowledge acquired belongs to the people themselves, the researchers are obligated to return the knowledge to the communities (Rahman, 1991).

From PAR to YPAR: Recognizing Young People’s Critical and Transformative Capacities

As mentioned earlier, PAR emerged from revolutionary pedagogical projects mainly across the global South, functioning as the research arm of these projects (Cammarota & Fine, 2008). While PAR projects were usually led by adults and addressed adults’ education, there has been increasing recognition of the need to design research that is more inclusive towards young people, shaped by critical youth studies and the “New Social Studies of Childhood.” These academic fields are built on the critique that researchers view young people mainly through the lens of biological determinism as psychological and physical stages of development (Barker & Weller, 2003; Sibley, 2002; Weller, 2007). Instead, these scholars broadened interpretations of childhood by distinguishing between how youth are categorized and presented in social discourses and policies and their actual social experiences (Quijada Cerecer et al., 2013; Weller, 2007). They conceptualized child- or youth-centered research as presenting “a more complex portrait of young people as meaningfully engaged, independent social actors whose activities and practices influence a variety of social contexts and settings” (Best, 2007, p. 21). The acknowledgment of youth as competent and autonomous actors in their own right and an increasing interest in investigating the socially constructed nature of adolescence contributed to a methodological shift towards critical and constructivist modes of inquiry (Best, 2007).

Another impetus for including young people as researchers or coresearchers is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). The UNCRC formally justifies children’s participation rights and establishes ethical standards of respecting children’s rights within research, recognizing children and young people not only as rights-holders but also as subjects of research who can express their views and experiences and influence their own lives, environment, and society through their actions (Alderson, 1999; Lundy & McEvoy, 2012).

Nevertheless, scholars from the fields of critical race theory, decolonialization, queer theory, and feminist theory among others have voiced concerns about the remaining power relations between adults and young people as well as between other dominant societal groups and those that are structurally and institutionally marginalized (Akom et al., 2008; Cammarota & Fine, 2008; Ginwright & Cammarota, 2007). They reject deficit approaches to young people’s civic (dis)engagement that construe marginalized youth as culturally deprived and as victims of poverty, ignoring the rich civic lives of these young people that exist beyond conventional conceptions of civic engagement (Noguera & Cannella, 2006). Cammarota and Fine (2008) argued that

critical youth studies goes beyond the traditional pathological or patronizing view by asserting that young people have the capacity and agency to analyze their social context, to engage critical research collectively, and to challenge and resist the forces impeding their possibilities for liberation. (p. 4)

For them, YPAR is a necessary extension of critical youth studies and a means for youth to engage in transformational resistance against educational and societal inequalities through undertaking critical scientific inquiry. By creating new formal and informal pedagogical spaces of resistance and resiliency, YPAR can be a tool, especially for marginalized and minoritized youth that “challenges the dominant mind set, increases academic engagement and achievement, and builds new understandings of the strength and assets of youth of color and the communities from which they come from” (Akom et al., 2008, p. 6). Building on PAR and Freire’s (1970) work on praxis, critical pedagogy, and critical consciousness, YPAR is explicitly pedagogical with important implications for education when youth study problems that obstruct their well-being or progress and develop solutions to them (Cammarota & Fine, 2010; McIntyre, 2000; Morrell, 2004). As part of this process, YPAR develops young people’s academic capacities by equipping them with critical knowledge about the workings of their social contexts and problem-solving abilities, and by facilitating youth civic engagement (Cammarota & Fine, 2008; McIntyre, 2000; Mirra et al., 2015; Morrell, 2004; L. F. Rodríguez & Brown, 2009).

In summary, it is widely recognized that PAR and YPAR encompass a variety of forms and meanings (Conolly, 2008; Hunleth, 2011). This diversity includes a spectrum of involvement modes, ranging from children setting the research agenda and analyzing data to acting as coresearchers or primary researchers (Bradbury-Jones & Taylor, 2015). Due to the broad array of approaches encompassed by this term, we identified a need to critically examine the justifications, processes, and understandings of young people’s civic learning that underpin these studies. We utilize the theoretical framework of YPAR, conceptualized as a collaborative and critical scientific inquiry between youth and researchers aimed at addressing educational and societal inequalities through research and civic action (Cammarota & Fine, 2008). While YPAR emphasizes the pedagogical aspects of this approach, we also draw on Creswell and Poth’s (2016) transformative framework to scrutinize the scientific inquiry elements of participatory research. We contend that an overview of the various conceptions of participatory research and civic learning can offer valuable insights to researchers on conducting participatory research with youth in a manner that is both critical and transformative.

Literature Search

The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive synthesis of contemporary participatory research involving young people. We specifically focus on the justifications, processes, and conceptions of civic learning in these studies. This review is primarily based on electronic searches for journal articles across the databases ERIC, Academic Search Premier (EBSCO), and Google Scholar, in which we searched for a combination of different terms related to participatory research methods, education, social justice (in a broad sense) and young people (for example: “participatory research methods,” “participatory action research,” “YPAR,” “YPAG,” “young people,” “youth”). The sample included international peer-reviewed articles written in English and published after 2010 that focused on young people of school age that employed a participatory methodology. The choice of this temporal scope is justified by the significant conceptual shifts and advancements that this field has undergone during this period. Technological advancements, globalization, and evolving societal values have all profoundly impacted the educational landscape and, thus, our preference to investigate contemporary developments. Focusing on the school-aged population as the focal demographic, rather than young adults or adult participants, is driven by our desire to comprehend this approach in the context of students’ distinct learning needs and the societal implications arising when engaging with this specific age group. Furthermore, we identified a gap in the review studies that primarily concentrate on formal and informal educational settings, which may be less relevant for post–high school populations. After checking for duplicates, scanning each text for our inclusion and exclusion criteria, and searching for relevant studies in the bibliography lists, our search produced a total of 95 articles (see Figure 2).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 2.

Literature search and study selection process.

One of the challenges during our search was the diversified definitions of participatory research with young people. To gain an accurate picture of how researchers understand and frame participatory research with youth, we included all articles that specified their approach as “participatory,” “collaborative,” “action research,” or “child- or youth-centered.” Another difficulty was the prevalence of studies that evaluated the use and impact of a participatory approach as opposed to studies that focused on the immediate findings of the research. We decided to include these evaluation studies when they sufficiently described the approach, processes, and findings of the actual research. In Table 1, we demarcate which studies focus on evaluation or reflection and those that focus on the findings of the participatory study.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1

Summary of analysis process

List of codes	Themes or storylines	Theoretical model
• Theoretical foundations • Context   ○ Setting   ○ Participants’ background   ○ Researchers’ background • Research techniques   ○ Data collection   ○ Data analysis   ○ Capacity building   ○ YPAR • Level of participation (of research participants)   ○ Participants collect data   ○ Participants analyze data   ○ Participants design research   ○ Participants disseminate findings • Role of the researcher   ○ Facilitator   ○ Collaborator • Ethics • Justification for study   ○ Goal   ○ Research questions   ○ Main arguments • Outcomes   ○ Contribution of study   ○ Impact on participants   ○ Implications • Limitations • Something interesting   ○ Power relations between adults and young people   ○ Community-initiated research   ○ Critical/social justice approach   ○ Inside versus outside of the classroom   ○ Notions of citizenship	• Expanding perspectives through YPAR • Developmental perspectives on youth • Citizen science approach • Acculturation theories • Triangulation as a benefit • Challenging stereotypes of youth • Youth as data collectors • Researcher-centered	Technical
	• Training in research skills • Personal empowerment and agency • Children’s rights approach Psychological theories about identity and behavior • Youth-centered • Youth involved in most stages of the research process	Capacity-building
	• Learning about systemic issues • Critical race theory • Culturally sustaining pedagogy • Empowerment through critical pedagogy • Giving voice to minoritized and marginalized youth • Highlight young people’s lived experiences • Researcher centered	Justice-oriented
	• Learning about systemic issues • Critical race theory • Decolonial theories • Critical youth studies • Culturally sustaining pedagogy • Funds of knowledge • Empowerment through critical pedagogy • Giving voice to minoritized and marginalized youth • Youth-centered • Youth involved in most stages of the research process • Advocacy and civic action	Transformative

We were purposive about finding diverse studies for our review in terms of the participatory approach they used and in which contexts they were conducted. By drawing on a broad sample, we aimed to investigate the breadth of different approaches to participatory research with young people. Our focus was on educational issues, yet the studies spanned other disciplines such as social work, sociology, political science, psychology, literature, geography, health, and environmental research. To be included, the studies had to meet the following criteria: authors defined research as “participatory,” peer-reviewed articles written in English, published after 2010, participants were school-age children and young people, and that research questions related to a social justice issue. We excluded studies that primarily focused on adults rather than young people (Bertrand & Ford, 2015; Wrenn & Reed, 2019), those that involved young people above the age of 18 (Goessling, 2017; Pryor & Outley, 2014), or cases where the study focused on researchers’ reflections or syntheses on a participatory study without providing sufficient details about their original study (Call-Cummings et al., 2019). We included reflection and evaluation studies when they provided enough details about the participatory process. While “qualitative” was one of our search terms, we did not aim to include only qualitative studies. Still, qualitative and mixed-methods research were dominant in our sample, which was certainly influenced by our search terms but also reflects the findings of other reviews, such as Anyon et al. (2018), who show that quantitative participatory studies are rare.

Analysis

We conducted a comprehensive synthesis of research to address broader questions about the nature of participatory research with youth. Working as a reflective team of three researchers, we analyzed qualitative research studies using an inductive and interpretive method as a form of meta-ethnography (Noblit & Hare, 1988). Meta-ethnography is a methodological framework for a translation theory of synthesis, a way of translating the written interpretations of qualitative studies as a set and in relation to each other (Noblit & Hare, 1988), forming “an interpretation of interpretations through a new lens” (Doyle, 2003, p. 330). This synthesis process can result in new interpretations, questions, and reconceptualizations beyond those of the individual studies by translating their “storylines” (Noblit, 2018).

We found meta-ethnography to be an appropriate method for this review study due to its aim to explore conceptual or theoretical understandings of a specific phenomenon (Sattar et al., 2021). According to Sattar et al. (2021), this methodological approach distinguishes itself from other synthesis methods in that it involves reviewers reinterpreting secondary data, such as themes and concepts, from the original authors of the studies under review. This process also involves consideration of the primary data, like participant quotes, from these studies, thereby facilitating the creation of higher-order themes. Our “translation” followed a line of argument approach (Noblit & Hare, 1988), as our set of studies tended to promote the same argument that research about young people should be more inclusive towards them; yet the researchers offered different methodologies and epistemologies as part of their justifications and, in this way, the storylines also “critique each other” (Noblit, 2019, p. 1).

Using the qualitative data analysis software Atlas.ti, each researcher read and coded a set of articles individually. This first round consisted of open coding, guided by our research interest in the variations of different participatory approaches. Examples of codes were “level of participation,” “role of the researcher,” and “justification for study” (see Table 1 for a complete list of codes). Through these codes, we identified multiple interpretations of participatory research in the studies that differed in terms of the young people’s participation level, their research goals, and to which extent the study led to collaborative civic action by participants and researchers.

For our second round of coding, we discussed and refined our codes, eventually reducing them to a list of 34 codes (Table 1), which were informed by our literature review and the reviewed articles. Based on this set of codes, we then compared our translations of each study and in relation to each other to explore how their sets of themes or “storylines” (Noblit, 2019) are similar and different. These storylines formed the basis for our theoretical model that we will discuss below (Table 1). Following Noblit’s (2018, 2019) approach, we included three levels of analysis: the first order as the direct participant quotes, the second order as the interpretation by the authors of the studies, and the third order that is our interpretation of the synthesis of those findings. To address the concerns raised by Doyle (2003) that meta-ethnographers risk overriding the original line of argument by the authors through their new interpretation, we largely rely on original quotes from the reviewed articles to which we added our third-order interpretations.

In the following sections, we will detail the results of the analysis process, which involved identifying various themes across the sample of studies. These themes allowed us to categorize the studies into four distinct ideal types of participatory research with youth: technical, capacity-building, justice-oriented, and transformative (see Figure 3). Simultaneously, we aligned these types on two theoretical axes (a) from researcher-centered to youth-centered research, reflecting different methodological and ontological orientations; and (b) from traditional to critical epistemological and axiological approaches.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 3.

The four types of participatory research.

Positionality

Our interpretation of the synthesis and translation of the reviewed studies is shaped by our positionalities and how we situate ourselves in the theoretical conundrum (Doyle, 2003). We are an international team of three researchers (Israel, Germany, and South Africa) from different and intersecting disciplines (education, philosophy, political science, and criminology). Our journey into participatory research with youth, particularly marginalized groups, stems from the convergence of our personal and professional experiences. We share a deep commitment to democratic civic education and diversity, which is a reflection of our own experiences and beliefs about the transformative power of education in shaping informed, critical, and active citizens. We seek to understand and amplify the voices of youth, especially those from marginalized backgrounds. While our diverse backgrounds provided us with various perspectives on the challenges and opportunities in fostering civic engagement among youth, we are also aware of the limitations of our understandings, particularly when it comes to comprehending the complexities faced by scholars and educators of color and the communities they represent. These limitations have required us to continuously reflect on and challenge our biases and assumptions, particularly when it comes to understanding the experiences of marginalized youth in different cultural and social contexts.

In terms of theory, we align with humanistic traditions and critical theory, which framed our approach to evaluating the reviewed studies. Our preconceptions became evident during our weekly meetings and were manifest in our memos, reflecting on our coding process. We observed that some reviewed studies excited us, while others left us disappointed regarding their approach toward civic learning and action. Instead of dismissing these perceptions as biases, we viewed them as an opportunity to delve deeper into the reasons behind our reactions and explore the underlying implications. Therefore, in addition to our literature review and theoretical framework, these personal perceptions informed our interpretation and influenced the themes presented in the discussion section.

Type 1—Technical research with young people

In these reviewed studies, participation was commonly conceptualized as a technical tool that assisted the researchers in collecting original data that could not be accessed in other ways and that involved youth mainly as “data gatherers.” Thus, we aligned the technical type of participatory studies as more researcher-centered on the ontological/methodological axis and more traditional on the epistemological/axiological axis.

Those studies’ researcher focus was exemplified as in most cases young people collected data for the researchers through photovoice (Agha et al., 2019; Brännström et al., 2020; Brickle & Evans-Agnew, 2017; Jackson-Gordon, 2020; Lieblein et al., 2018; Robertson et al., 2016; Tickle, 2019; Wang et al., 2016; Yates, 2010), mapping (Gibbs et al., 2018; Literat, 2013), child-led tours (Agha et al., 2019; Loebach & Gilliland, 2010), through writing and other arts-based methods (Balakrishnan & Narvaez, 2016; Bettney, 2021; Korjonen-Kuusipuro et al., 2019; Liabo et al., 2017), or quantitative methods (Brickle & Evans-Agnew, 2017; Gallerani et al., 2017). These methods were often combined with individual interviews, focus groups, and participant observations. Some researchers involved youth more extensively by consulting them on the research design (Liabo et al., 2017; O’Brien & Dadswell, 2020; Rose et al., 2012; Ruff & Harrison, 2020) and involving them in the thematic analysis of their photos (Lieblein et al., 2018). Brännström et al. (2020), Brickle and Evans-Agnew (2017), and Lieblein et al. (2018) provided participants with the opportunity to showcase their photos in an exhibition; and in Rogers’s (2020) study, participants summarized their findings on advice posters for other students.

Most reviewed studies referred to youth engagement and empowerment as one of their rationales for including young people in their study. Still, other rationales were mentioned that suggest that young people mainly occupied the role as “data gatherers” to expand or enrich the collected data. For example, in their environmental participatory study, Brickle and Evans-Agnew (2017) justified their approach as

to empower more youth in collecting air samples from a wider area. Such collection might provide larger datasets to examine geographic disparities in exposure to woodsmoke in addition to mobilizing more youth to become engaged in advocacy for decreases in wood burning. (p. 98)

Thus, they paired goals of youth empowerment with the pragmatic goal of achieving greater data sets by including youth in their study. Pragmatism as a reason for choosing photovoice as a method was mentioned in Tickle’s (2019) study about policing, safety, and security in coastal resorts who advocated photovoice as an “easy” and “flexible” method:

Employing photovoice as a method of data collection has many advantages; it is flexible and adaptable to many settings; taking photographs is easy to do and can be used by a wide range of people; and can be utilized alongside other methods, which this paper strongly advocates. (p. 104)

We argue that these rationales point to the researcher-centered focus of these studies by prioritizing what is useful or helpful to the researchers over investigating the needs of the young participants. While most of these studies intended to incorporate young people’s voices and perspectives, they remained largely restricted by only allowing young people to participate in the processes of data collection and research design consultation. Ultimately, this left the power to determine the research agenda with the researcher. In their study about what inclusion meant to young people, Rose et al. (2012) reflected on their approach critically. They consulted with a young people advisory group about the researchers’ interview questions for young people, the data analysis, and how the data should be disseminated. Yet the researchers were ultimately in control of these processes:

It is acknowledged that the researcher decided to undertake the project and ultimately retained the decision-making power within it; however, its design attempted to blend the researcher’s thoughts, decisions, and reflections with those of the advisory group at each stage of the project. (p. 259)

Generally, the authors of these studies framed the ontological rationale for using a participatory approach as tapping into young people’s perspectives and, in this way, expanding the researchers’ perspectives on the given research topic. Agha et al. (2019) argued that the use of participatory methods empowers researchers by showing them the children’s point of view: “drawings and photos, in particular, give adults access to secret and children’s ‘own’ places that are otherwise outside of adult visual scope and understanding” (p. 695). Balakrishnan and Narvaez (2016) sought to “test” through the use of participatory methods “how the interests and voices of students can shape the curriculum” (p. 4). Such research goals generate the impression that the purpose of participatory methods is mainly to serve the researchers and less about supporting young people to investigate issues that they are concerned about.

These power dimensions are also reflected in the epistemological aspects of these studies, which seemed to be more directed towards confirming existing research theories than to challenge existing academic knowledge and explore new knowledges through the insights provided by young people. This was particularly evident in cases where researchers drew on psychological theories about child development that specify abilities, skills, and competencies that adults consider as desirable developments and outcomes—a perspective that has been challenged by YPAR researchers (Akom et al., 2008; Quijada Cerecer et al., 2013). For example, Wang et al. (2016) used photovoice to explore the individual enculturation processes of Chinese American adolescents and concluded that “the photovoice method helped to facilitate her [young participant’s] enculturation process” (p. 384). The focus of this study was on testing psychological theories about children’s identity development rather than examining the new knowledges that were generated by the young participants through the photo elicitation task. In another photovoice study, Johansen and Le (2014) drew on contact theory and social identity theory “to examine youth attitude toward multicultural contexts to understand the factors that lead to the apparent negative, as well as the increasingly recognized positive outcomes of diversity and multiculturalism” (p. 551). Such perspectives seem to primarily draw on participatory methods to confirm existing academic knowledge instead of viewing it as a means to explore alternative ways of knowing by young people.

Type 2—Capacity-building research with young people

In contrast to the technical type, studies from the capacity-building type involved youth in most stages of the research processes such as research design, data collection and analysis (Horgan et al., 2017; Linville, 2011), or data collection, analysis and dissemination (Aldridge, 2012; Alegría et al., 2022; Bonati & Andriana, 2021; Byrne et al., 2020; Crook & Cox, 2022; King et al., 2021; Kubiliene et al., 2015; Leung et al., 2017; Liebenberg et al., 2020; Sarti et al., 2018; Shabtay, 2021; C. D. Smith & Hope, 2020; Warne et al., 2013; Wilderink et al., 2021). For example, in Crook and Cox’s (2022) study, young people designed, conducted, and analyzed interviews with adults. Some studies (Blevins et al., 2016; Canosa et al., 2020; Cochrane Bocci, 2016; Duke & Fripp, 2020; Durham et al., 2019; Harden et al., 2015; Kirshner et al., 2011; Koudelka, 2021; Nolan et al., 2021; Pearson & Howe, 2017; L. Smith et al., 2018; Trott, 2019) involved youth at all stages in which the researchers acted as collaborators or researched the students’ experiences of taking part in these research projects. Most studies concluded with youth sharing their findings with their communities through advocacy projects (Blevins et al., 2016; Nolan et al., 2021), the creation of animations (Canosa et al., 2020), documentaries, and a poetry slam (Cochrane Bocci, 2016) or a theater play (Harden et al., 2015).

This second type of participatory research was more youth-focused as these studies involved young people in most research processes and mostly aimed at teaching participants research and leadership skills. A guiding assumption behind the studies included in this type was that teaching such skills would promote personal empowerment and agency among students.

The teaching of research skills was accentuated in several studies. For example, Harden et al. (2015) highlighted as a main outcome of a youth violence prevention and intervention program that “the youth developed skills in leadership, trauma-informed practice, documentary production, theatre, and participatory action research” (p. 65); and Crook and Cox (2022) argued in their participatory study in a primary school that “the research activities would provide opportunities to develop participatory skills, useful for when the young people transferred to secondary school later in the year” (p. 5). Focusing on the cognitive challenges of participatory research with youth, Kirshner et al. (2011) also adopted this approach. They explained that

learning how to manage bias is an important skill for inquiry-based learning in school - it is relevant to national science standards that call for students to formulate research questions, ground explanations in evidence, and be open to revising interpretations based on data. (p. 141)

Similarly, Alegría et al. (2022) highlighted how a participatory approach contributed to developing team collaboration abilities, communication, and leadership skills.

We concluded that these efforts to empower youth largely remained restricted to the level of individual empowerment. Such approaches align more with traditional epistemologies that prioritize academic knowledge and achievement as a goal. Eben though individual empowerment is an important first step, the capacity-building approach often falls short of situating young people’s experiences of injustice in larger political and social contexts as well as actively engaging them in transformative civic action. This is exemplified by a quote from Duke and Fripp (2020), whose study was based on a YPAR project with African American girls. While they explain that “biases” against Black girls are “systemic,” their study is limited to a focus on individual stereotypes:

To disrupt those negative messages and create positive counter-narratives, our study seeks to examine African American girls’ perceptions of working with girls who have similar identities across race and gender in an YPAR project and explore the components of the YPAR project that may impact the perspectives about their group. (p. 4)

Another example of an approach that is individualistic and epistemologically more traditional was expressed by Blevins et al. (2016) who evaluated the outcomes of a civic program for youth, highlighting “action civics” potential contribution to addressing youth’s achievement and civic “deficits”: “As a new approach to civic education, action civics also has the potential to close both the academic achievement and civic engagement gaps and empower youth” (p. 347).

Type 3—Justice-oriented research with young people

Studies from the justice-oriented type involved youth mainly in data collection processes (Ali, 2016; Angucia et al., 2010; Caraballo, 2017; Durham et al., 2019; Gordon, 2019; Hadley et al., 2019; Johnston-Goodstar & Sethi, 2013; Keegan, 2023; McIver, 2020; Pestana, 2017; S. Rodriguez et al., 2021; Shields et al., 2020; Van Buggenhout, 2020; Zaal & Terry, 2013). Joanou (2017) used photovoice with his participants and allowed them to disseminate their photos through an online album. These studies mostly involved young people as research participants and not as researchers or coresearchers. The only exceptions were the studies by Del Vecchio et al. (2017) and Ingram (2014), in which young people collected data through interviews and analyzed them. Similarly, E. Jiménez (2021) involved a young people’s advisory group for consultation regarding her research design and data analysis. Still, we decided to categorize those studies as more researcher-centered because young people did not have opportunities to shape the research topic and to decide whether and how the findings would be used for social change or civic action.

Yet in contrast to studies from the technical and capacity-building types, these justice-oriented studies adopted a more critical stance, stressing the need to empower participants to question and challenge structural inequalities. Many of these studies problematize power relations—not only between adults and children but between dominant cultures and those historically marginalized and minoritized. As such, students’ participation in research was seen as a way to diversify and counteract the traditional academic discourse and knowledge.

This approach was exemplified, for example, by Johnston-Goodstar and Sethi (2013) who evaluated a youth program that counters the historical misrepresentation of Native Americans: “Youth critiqued the glorification of old White guys as it contrasted with a general absence of Native peoples in the university buildings that housed their program. They expressed disappointment in public institutions for failing to present Native American content” (p. 74).

Similarly, in Gordon’s (2019) study about a participatory project conducted in an English classroom, students were empowered to critically examine dominant ideologies by being exposed to alternative nondominant accounts: “By contrasting her learning goals with the school’s learning goals, Kierra [a participating student] established a power dynamic between what she wanted to know and what those in power wanted her to know” (p. 12).

In contrast to the studies we positioned as Type 1, which mainly engaged participants for the purpose of gathering data, the studies included in this type did not only aspire to offer new perspectives but also wished to empower participants to challenge mainstream academic knowledge by drawing on their critical subjectivities. This approach was explained, for example, by Del Vecchio et al. (2017) regarding their implementation of the photovoice method when engaging with marginalized youth. As they explained, “Taking and discussing photographs of their surroundings was a starting point to explore the significance of place in their lives, complicating and disrupting the prevalent damage-based narratives that tend to dominate depictions of migrant lives” (p. 372). In their study on literacy practices, Hadley et al. (2019) also voiced this critical stance:

Equipping youth to contextualize the current policies of the city and issues that their communities face within a larger historical narrative enable youth to consider the ways that dominant assumptions about themselves, their families and their communities might be challenged if they enter civic conversations and provide counternarratives that center their own developing sense of who they are and what they are capable of. (p. 104)

Notably, these studies adopted a critical approach by focusing on systemic and institutional injustices. Ingram (2014) conducted a collaborative study on girls’ perspectives of gender, citizenship, and schooling. She justified this methodological approach by explaining that “the participants were also able to get beyond their own individual experiences and understand how systemic issues reinforced inequalities related to gender, race and culture” (p. 321).

Criticality was inherent in the rationale of these studies. For example, Ali (2016) advocated that researchers should critically reflect on the purpose of their project and whether it benefits their participants:

For concerned social investigators, simply finding the most interesting question cannot guide their research projects. They must ask the following questions: (1) Who benefits from this work? (2) What are the ramifications of this research? And (3) In whose interests is this project constructed? If these questions do not place the community and participants’ needs and lives ahead of all else, both in the short and long term, then the research itself should be refocused or abandoned altogether. (p. 92)

Yet while studies that align with this approach are empowering in that they highlight perspectives from marginalized youths, they were limited in that they did not sufficiently involve the young participants in the research design or train them to conduct research and engage in civic activism.

Type 4—Transformative research with young people

Finally, studies of the transformative type involved young people in all stages of the research: research design, data collection, and analysis and dissemination (Akom et al., 2016; Aldana et al., 2016; Bautista et al., 2013; Bertrand, 2016; Buckley-Marudas & Soltis, 2020; Cammarota & Romero, 2011; Caraballo & Lyiscott, 2020; Craven et al., 2017; Davis, 2021; DeBower et al., 2023; DeJaynes & Curmi-Hall, 2019; Dill, 2015; Foster-Fishman et al., 2010; Garcia & Mirra, 2021; Gómez & Castañeda, 2019; C. Jiménez et al., 2021; Krueger, 2010; Mirra et al., 2013; R. Rodriguez et al., 2018; Stoudt et al., 2012). Importantly, the research agenda was usually guided, but research topics were defined by the youth researchers themselves, and these studies included advocacy and civic action. Examples of such civic actions were presentations of the findings to communities, policy and decision-makers, and academics (Akom et al., 2016; Aldana et al., 2016; Bautista et al., 2013; DeBower et al., 2023; Gómez & Castañeda, 2019; R. Rodriguez et al., 2018; Stoudt et al., 2012); documentary films (Bautista et al., 2013; Garcia & Mirra, 2021); a book featuring youth’s poetry (Dill, 2015); and photo exhibitions (Gómez & Castañeda, 2019; C. Jiménez et al., 2021). Notably, the youth researchers coauthored the articles of Craven et al. (2017) and R. Rodriguez et al. (2018).

Using a participatory approach, the researchers collaborated with youth to investigate research topics relevant to young people’s experiences and support them to engage in civic action. Most of these studies targeted young people from communities historically suffering from injustices such as African American, Latinx, LGBTQ, Indigenous, refugee, and migrant youth, among others. Another interesting feature of this type was that all studies were conducted in the United States, whereas other countries were more evenly represented among the other types. It is essential to state that not unexpectedly, our sample is overrepresented by research from English-speaking countries, as we only included studies published in English. Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that scholars in the USA, particularly those from historically marginalized communities, appear to be leading the way in transformative participatory research.

Similar to studies from the justice-oriented type, transformative studies embedded individual experiences in wider social structures and historical contexts, as a study about a photovoice project with diverse inner-city youth demonstrated: “During this activity, youth moved from voicing individual experiences to critically examining patterns of socioeconomic and educational inequity” (Aldana et al., 2016, p. 352). However, such transformative studies extended further to engage youth in civic action:

The team spent several weeks organizing and analyzing the information gathered during the tour to identify issues, generate possible solutions, and develop an action plan. The Photovoice tour provided participants with information on local racial and socioeconomic inequalities, which complemented their previous discussions of school funding disparities. (p. 352)

As mentioned, these studies explicitly dealt with topics relevant to young people’s lives and emerged from their experiences. This was emphasized in Cammarota and Romero’s (2011) study, whose YPAR project was grounded on a “funds of knowledge” approach, as

knowledge gathered in student research is used for learning purposes as well as for understanding how to improve conditions within their social contexts. Students develop an ontological understanding of how to use their “funds of knowledge” to generate more equitable social relationships by ameliorating conditions and opportunities for themselves, families, and communities. (p. 494)

This also illustrates the different ontological approach of these studies and their educational and civic mission. In Krueger’s (2010) study, students critically examined securitized spaces in their school and their accounts challenged racialized surveillance practices:

Student narratives about their lived experience with securitized school space provided rare insights to how the ideology of security is stamping and reshaping the spatial designs of school and increasingly redefining what behavior and interaction is and is not filed as socially permissible. (p. 404).

Through the research project, young people were given tools and an opportunity to bring their experiences to the attention of policymakers, academics, and the community: “with the power of our collected visual and written narratives, members of this research collective felt equipped to initiate and lead actions towards demanding less demonizing and criminalizing and thus more youth-centered school safety practices” (p. 404).

Such transformative forms of participation can be a model for “critical democracy,” as framed by Mirra et al. (2013) who focused on the activities of a youth council in the USA:

What does participation in a critical democracy look like? It looks like students using laptops to prepare presentations; it looks like students using technology to interview elected officials; it looks like students reflecting on their experiences and telling their stories in published articles; it looks like students engaging in dialogue with their elected officials; it looks like students organizing for social change. In the Council, critical democracy looks like students using social inquiry to gather, interpret, and disseminate data that represent their voices and views related to the struggles they experience every day. (p. 6)

They explain that in contrast to the usual “top-down approach” of research institutions, “the Council serves as a space where youth begin to speak for themselves in the public sphere and where their interests become represented in the political process - where they begin to embody Freire’s notion of critical consciousness” (p. 6). Therefore, collaborating research teams that employ such a transformative approach to participatory research not only aim to contribute to academic knowledge but first and foremost seek to catalyze social change and redress existing power relations between researchers and participants and between academia and communities.

In summary, while all the studies we reviewed fall under the broad category of participatory research, our analysis showed that this is an umbrella term encompassing a diverse range of studies. These studies differ in their epistemological and ontological assumptions, as well as in their methodological and axiological orientations (see appendix Table S1 in the online version of the journal and Figure 2). We observed significant variations in underlying assumptions, research questions, sample populations, methodological justifications, and the results and insights derived from these studies. In the sections that follow, we will provide a meta-analysis of the four types of participatory research with youth identified through our inquiry. This analysis will specifically highlight the distinctions between traditional and critical studies, as well as between researcher-centered and youth-centered approaches.