A Systematic Review of the Environmental Outcomes Associated with Youth Participatory Action Research in the United States

Background and Purpose: Youth participatory action research (YPAR) is one approach that facilitates youth engagement and disrupts the narrative that young people cannot contribute. YPAR involves young people partnering with adults to conceptualize an issue of social inequity, collect information about that topic, and advance specific change-oriented agendas that may include revising policies, building new institutions, improving service delivery or disrupting structures of power (Cammarota & Fine, 2010; Schensul, 2014). Despite the focus on creating social change through YPAR, much of the literature on this approach has focused on benefits of participation for the young people involved. Less is known about the influence of YPAR on the adults, systems, and broader environments in which these programs are embedded. The current study synthesizes the YPAR literature with the primary aim of identifying the environmental outcomes that may be associated with this approach. In addition, we consider whether there are any study or program characteristics associated with these reported environmental transformations.

Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, this review involved 4 phases. 1) 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 action board OR organizing). 2) abstracts were screened to apply first-round inclusion criteria (peer-reviewed, conducted in US, empirical evaluation, targeted youth). 3) full articles were screened to apply second-round inclusion criteria (project involved youth in inquiry, included findings about outcomes or impact of the project, youth served in roles beyond data collection). Finally, the 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).

Results: Overall, 36 studies documented environmental outcomes, representing 57.1% of our total sample of 63 YPAR studies. Among the studies that reported environmental outcomes, the five inductive categories of these outcomes included: practitioner growth (n=12; 33.3%), policy development (n=5; 13.9%), program development or enhancement (n=19; 52.8%), research benefits (n=14; 38.9%), and change in peer norms (n= 6; 16.7%). The subset of YPAR papers that reported environmental outcomes were primarily qualitative (64.7%), and most studies used multiple forms of data from different sources (e.g. YPAR participants, facilitators, peers) to triangulate findings. YPAR studies that provided concrete and specific examples of transformative social action were more likely to report environmental outcomes. Programs that utilized an advocacy (84.0%) or organizing approach (88.9%), listed the target audience as policy makers or representatives of schools/organizations and/or, met for a greater number of weeks were more likely to report environmental outcomes.

Conclusion and Implications: This review’s findings demonstrate how YPAR programs can be associated with positive, and in many cases lasting, changes in their environments, including their schools, neighborhoods, and communities. The program length, approach, and target of change are all are important program characteristics associated with environmental outcomes. Furthermore, findings of this review emphasize how YPAR enhances the depth, validity, and quality of research.