A Systematic Review of Youth Participatory Action Research Studies

Background:

Participatory action research, in partnership with youth, is known as Youth Participatory Action Research or YPAR. YPAR has three general principles: that it be inquiry based (exploring the real life problems, needs, and desires of the youth), that it be participatory (youth are in genuine collaboration in both the methodological and pedagogical processes), and that it be transformative (the purpose is to actively intervene to transform knowledge and practices to improve lives of youth). It has been argued that YPAR is one way to achieve social justice especially for marginalized youth. This study is a systematic review of YPAR studies examining trends in samples involved, methods utilized, and outcomes reported.

Methods:

A team of four researchers conducted a systematic review of YPAR studies that involved 4 phases. 1) We conducted a comprehensive search of relevant databases (e.g., PsycINFO, ERIC, Social Service Abstracts) using search terms to specify population of interest (e.g., youth OR student OR young adult) and topic (e.g., participatory research OR advocacy OR organizing). 2) Abstracts were screened to apply first-round inclusion criteria (peer-reviewed, conducted in US, empirical evaluation, project targeted youth). 3) Full articles were screened to apply second-round inclusion criteria (project involved youth in inquiry, findings about outcomes or impact of the project included, youth served in roles beyond data collectors). Finally, remaining articles were double coded by researcher pairs. Articles were coded for methodological characteristics as well as environmental outcomes (effects on systems), methodological outcomes (effects on research), and youth-level outcomes (e.g. self-efficacy, critical thinking).

Results:

Of the 3,325 studies collected through a search of the literature, 84 studies were screened into the sample and coded. YPAR studies were most frequently conducted in urban environments, with samples including youth of color and low-income youth. YPAR studies most often used a case study design with qualitative data drawn from interviews, focus groups or field observations. Few studies reported clear demographic characteristics of their samples, and few used validated quantitative measures of the outcomes they intended to examine. Very few studies hypothesized their reported outcomes a priori. Most studies reported youth-level outcomes but did not report environmental or methodological outcomes. Those studies which did report environmental outcomes lacked data or detailed analysis of those outcomes.

Conclusion:

YPAR methodology represents an opportunity for social workers to bridge the gap between research and practice, working with youth to create change and disrupt inequalities in their communities. The results of this systematic review indicate that YPAR methodology is being widely used and studied, but that current peer-reviewed empirical evidence is lacking in scope, detail and rigor. As YPAR scholarship continues to develop, social work scholars should consider how to rigorously evaluate all potential outcomes: environmental, methodological, and youth-level. Social workers, both researcher and practitioners, should consider how YPAR can empower youth to achieve equal opportunity for themselves and their communities while documenting effects empirically.