Lgbtqq Youth's Innovative Use of PAR in Direct Action and Evaluation of Organizing Model

Background and Purpose: Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, and similarly identified (LGBTQQ) youth’s lives are affected by systemic oppression based on sexuality (heterosexism) and gender identity/expression (genderism). Most existing research on this community has been adult-led and emphasizes a risk-based, individual-level approach. However, these young people demonstrate strengths, including resilience, social support, and effecting multi-level change. Within the innovative organizing models used by LGBTQQ young people are youth-led evaluation and research. These serve as direct action in the form of participatory action research (PAR) as well as evaluation of organizing and its impacts on youth and adults. This case study examines the use of such tools in Riot Youth’s – an organization of LGBTQQ youth – change model.

Methods: The present study draws from a mixed-methods case study (including participant observation, key-informant interviews, focus groups, organizational documents, mixed-methods surveys, seven academic papers written with youth), as well as assessment of each of these procedures. This multisource approach allows for triangulation of findings and captures depth within the case, including the theoretical sensitivity of youth and researchers. Thematic analyses and constant comparison methods were used to analyze data.

Results: The ongoing relationship between evaluation, research, and Riot Youth’s change model was grounded in relationships among and between young people and adults, as well as community and academic partners, which all centered youth leadership and experiences. These mutually beneficial relationships enabled strategies of research and evaluation that were integrated throughout Riot Youth’s change model. These relationships were first formed in the process of a youth-initiated, youth-led participatory action research project assessing climate and engagement among high school students. Adults played an advisory role, training young people in research skills and providing access to resources (e.g., previously used and validated measures), which youth modified to align with their own experiences and contexts.

Youth integrated various research methods into their organizing work, using research findings to build capacity, gain access to networks and resources, and inform strategic decision-making.  Further, ongoing forms of informal evaluation, in the form of “process conversations,” were normalized, contributing to the iterative relationship between evaluation and engagement.

Youth leadership in designing and analyzing qualitative and quantitative evaluation revealed ways that new methods and measures can more effectively tap into the experiences of LGBTQQ young people, particularly as it relates to: issues of confidentiality, the role of community and families of choice in the lives of LGBTQQ young people, the specificity of heterosexism and genderism in myriad contexts, and the roles of identity development and fluidity in youth empowerment. 

Conclusions and Implications:

Youth-led participatory action research has the potential to better define and redefine LGBTQQ youth’s lived experiences, as well as providing avenues to support ongoing efforts to impact changes in their communities and their lives. Our findings highlight the importance of building community-led research models and measures that assess the specificity of youth communities in context. Future collaborative research can further knowledge about the validity of PAR processes and understanding the impacts of various research methodologies on LGBTQQ youth empowerment.