Engaging Youth in Participatory Research and Evaluation · Engaging Youth in Participatory ... Youth participatory research has roots ... 2001–2003 Bosnia-Herzegovina youth participatory

Engaging Youth in ParticipatoryResearch and Evaluation

Jane L. Powers and Jennifer S. Tiffany� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

Although participatory research has been applied by a wide

range of disciplines, the engagement of youth as partners

in research and evaluation efforts is relatively new. The

positive youth development movement has influenced scholars

and practitioners to include youth as partners in the design and

implementation of research involving issues that affect their lives.

Engaging youth in research and evaluation not only generates

useful knowledge for communities and individuals but also

provides opportunities for the development and empowerment of

youth participants, leading to benefits for young people,

organizations, the broader community, and the research process.

However, there has been little systematic study to establish an

evidence base for these effects. This article describes four

projects that illustrate active youth participation in research.

These examples demonstrate opportunities for positive youth

development, create a context for intergenerational partnerships,

and generate research findings to inform future interventions and

organizational improvements, including community mobilization.

KEY WORDS: evaluation, participatory research, youthdevelopment, youth engagement

Efforts to involve young people as research part-ners build on well-established participatory researchmethods and create opportunities both for promotingyouth development (YD) and for improving the sci-entific study of issues affecting young people’s lives.This article focuses on the theory, practice, and implica-tions of engaging young people as partners in researchand evaluation. The first section provides a theoreticaland empirical overview, describing the evolution of thisnew field of practice. The second section presents fourexamples of research projects in which we have par-

J Public Health Management Practice, 2006, November(Suppl), S79–S87

C© 2006 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.

ticipated that illustrate different approaches to youthengagement in research and evaluation. We highlightthe ways in which youth participated in these projects,the issues encountered, and their implications for prac-tice and future research. The final section presents rec-ommendations for further efforts to involve youth inpublic health research and evaluation based on our ex-perience in this underutilized strategy to inform publichealth practice.

● Background

Participatory approaches such as “action research” and“empowerment evaluation” have gained increasingrecognition and use among scholars and practitionersacross a wide range of disciplines.1 Although they haveevolved over the past several decades from various tra-ditions of theory and practice, participatory approachesshare common underlying themes. They encourage op-pressed or marginalized groups to collectively studythe issues and conditions that affect their health andwell-being, while also encouraging respect for, anduse of, multiple perspectives and methodologies. Bypromoting critical thinking and the exploration of thesocial circumstances related to research questions, par-ticipatory research goes beyond mere fact-gatheringand report-writing and uses the knowledge gained toguide and energize collective change in communities,organizations, programs, and the research participantsthemselves.2,3 It relies on local knowledge and empha-sizes the involvement of nonacademics who have ex-pertise as individuals who live the research issue.4

Both authors contributed equally to this article.

Corresponding author: Jane L. Powers, PhD, Cornell University, Family LifeDevelopment Center, Beebe Hall, Ithaca, NY 14853 (e-mail: [email protected]).

� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

Jane L. Powers, PhD, is Director, ACT for Youth Center of Excellence, Family Life

Development Center, Cornell University, Beebe Hall, Ithaca, New York.

Jennifer S. Tiffany, PhD, is Director, HIV/AIDS Education Project, Family Life

Development Center, Cornell University, Beebe Hall, Ithaca, New York.

S79

S80 ❘ Journal of Public Health Management and Practice

Participatory research projects have addressed inter-national development issues,5 organizational change,6

community development and advocacy needs,7,8 andhealthcare and community health promotion.9–11 As apopulation, however, adolescents have been engagedby researchers almost exclusively as subjects, respon-dents, and informants, but not as resources or partnersin the discovery of new knowledge or the developmentof policies and programs.12 Young people’s knowledgeand understanding have often been undervalued ordismissed as invalid.13 Researchers, policy makers, andprogram evaluators have begun to engage young peo-ple as research partners, to better understand youth andthe contexts that affect their development.14 Youth par-ticipatory research projects can now be found in com-munities worldwide, evidence that youth involvementis now recognized as both valuable and valid.15–17

Youth participatory research has roots in sev-eral related fields including action research, com-munity development, empowerment evaluation,and positive YD.4,18 It utilizes an ecological-developmental framework, in which human de-velopment is optimized when “maximum support andmaximum challenge” offer opportunities to en-gage in increasingly complex activities and socialinteractions.19 The iterative process of exploringdeeper and more nuanced questions about socialissues inherent in this method offers a context forhuman development that is particularly appropriateto adolescents. As described in other articles in thissupplement, YD has redefined how young peopleare being understood, viewed, and engaged, shiftingthe youth services paradigm from a deficit model inwhich youth are seen as problems, to a strength-basedmodel that views young people as having assets to benurtured within communities.20

Youth developmental assets acquired or enhancedthrough participatory research include (1) leadershipskills as change agents; (2) critical thinking ability; (3)building a diverse social network and a broad base ofknowledge; (4) valuable skills such as writing, analy-sis, presentation, and advocacy (K. Goto, P. Pelletier, G.Pelto, J.S. Tiffany, unpublished observation) ; (5) oppor-tunities to take on new roles and responsibilities involv-ing decision making13,17,21; (6) form new relationshipswith adults and members of the broader community18;(7) serve as role models to other youth and as expertspossessing local knowledge about issues that affectyoung people.22 The entire enterprise engages youngpeople in research on important social issues that en-ables them to exercise their political rights, preparesthem for active participation in a democratic society,and empowers them to create social change.13,22–24 (Seecase studies by Schulman elsewhere in this supplementfor additional examples.)

Participation by youth in the research process canimprove the quality of research by generating more re-liable data and improving data interpretation becauseit involves those closest to the issues under investiga-tion in the formulation of research questions and thestrategies to answer them. This enhances the likelihoodthat findings will be useful, owned, and acted upon bythose involved in producing them.25 Youth are gener-ally more informed about program services offered andoften better able to obtain meaningful data that wouldotherwise be inaccessible to traditional, adult-drivenmethods. Furthermore, young people may more easilygain the trust of other youth than adults and may gatherdata that are more valid and reliable.26

Like many disenfranchised groups, young peoplehave suffered from misinformed decisions and policiesintended to help them, but designed without their in-put. The involvement of young people in the researchprocess helps change this dynamic, providing themwith the tools to develop and validate knowledge andto influence the development of programs and policiesdesigned to affect their lives.15

● Examples

Four projects are described below, illustrating the meth-ods used to engage youth in participatory research andevaluation, with a focus on the ways in which youngpeople were involved, rather than on the findings fromthe research.27–32 Table 1 summarizes key elements ofeach of these four examples. It is useful for compar-ing the similarities and differences across the projectsin terms of their objectives, methods, research teamcomposition, approaches used to engage youth, andimpacts.

Independent living study (youth/adult researchpartnership model)

The aim of the independent living study (ILS) wasto better understand the scope and nature of youthhomelessness in an upstate New York community. Itprovided community planning data to obtain federalfunds to serve the county’s homeless population. Tra-ditional methods used to collect data on the adult home-less population, such as point-in-time counts at emer-gency shelters and soup kitchens, tend to underes-timate youth homelessness, because homeless youthtypically do not use these services and are relativelymobile, rendering them a “hidden population.”33–35

Therefore, the ILS engaged a group of six formerlyhomeless youth to become core members of the projectresearch team. These “youth researchers” were in-volved in all aspects of the project, from designing

Engaging Youth in Participatory Research and Evaluation ❘ S81

TABL

E1

●Exam

ple

sof

youth

part

icip

ato

ryre

searc

hand

evalu

ati

on

pro

jects

∗��

Rur

alad

oles

cent

HIV

UN

ICEF

“Wha

tev

ery

adol

esce

ntha

sa

Yout

han

dA

dult

Lead

ers

for

Inde

pend

ent

Livi

ngS

tudy

prev

enti

onst

udy

righ

tto

know

”–B

osni

a-H

erze

govi

na(R

TK)

Pro

gra

mEx

celle

nce

(YA

LPE)

Obj

ecti

ves

ofth

est

udy

Toob

tain

data

onth

enu

mbe

rof

hom

eles

syo

uth

livin

gin

coun

ty;t

o

unde

rsta

ndth

eir

uniq

uene

eds,

stre

ngth

s,an

dch

alle

nges

face

d

Tole

arn

abou

trur

al

adol

esce

nts’

HIV

-rel

ated

unde

rsta

ndin

g,fe

ars,

and

risk/

prot

ectiv

ebe

havi

ors,

and

abou

ttee

n-ad

ult

com

mun

icat

ion

abou

t

HIV

-rel

ated

topi

cs

Toin

volv

eyo

uth

inde

velo

ping

UN

ICEF

’s

natio

nala

ndin

tern

atio

nalH

IV

com

mun

icat

ion

stra

tegi

es,t

oem

pow

er

yout

h,an

dto

deve

lop

youn

gpe

ople

’ssk

ills

Tohe

lpyo

uth-

serv

ing

orga

niza

tions

enha

nce

prog

ram

qual

ity;a

ndto

guid

eyo

uth/

adul

ttea

ms

thro

ugh

orga

niza

tiona

lass

essm

entp

roce

ss

Was

yout

hde

velo

pmen

ta

stat

ed

stud

yob

ject

ive?

No

No

Yes

Yes

Who

init

iate

dth

est

udy?

CB

O,C

omm

unity

Plan

ning

Com

mitt

eeU

nive

rsity

rese

arch

ers

UN

ICEF

Hea

dqua

rter

sU

nive

rsity

rese

arch

ers

Dur

atio

nof

stud

yO

ctob

er20

02to

Oct

ober

2003

Pilo

tpha

se(c

odes

ign

stud

y

with

com

mun

ityin

put):

Late

1999

–La

te20

00

Surv

ey,i

nter

vent

ion,

and

follo

w-u

pph

ase:

Early

2001

–La

te20

02

Glo

bali

nitia

tive:

2001

–20

03

Bos

nia-

Her

zego

vina

yout

hpa

rtic

ipat

ory

actio

n

rese

arch

effo

rt:2

003

Follo

w-u

p:20

04

Ong

oing

Rec

ruit

ing

met

hods

Cha

in-r

efer

rala

mon

gpe

ers;

venu

e

sam

plin

g

Part

icip

ant-

driv

enre

crui

tmen

tVe

nue

sam

plin

gIn

stitu

tiona

l

Com

posi

tion

ofre

sear

chte

amU

nive

rsity

rese

arch

ers,

adul

tsta

ff

from

CB

Oan

dco

unty

plan

ning

offic

e,yo

uth

part

icip

ants

inC

BO

,

unde

rgra

duat

esst

uden

ts

Uni

vers

ityre

sear

cher

s,st

uden

t

rese

arch

inte

rns,

com

mun

ity-b

ased

rese

arch

inte

rns,

peer

recr

uite

rs/

part

icip

ants

Adu

ltfa

cilit

ator

,you

thco

re-t

eam

of

rese

arch

ers,

LIG

am

embe

rs(la

rger

team

ofyo

uth

invo

lved

inco

nduc

ting

stud

y)

Prog

ram

sid

entif

yyo

uth-

adul

ttea

ms

from

the

orga

niza

tion

toco

nduc

t

orga

niza

tiona

lsel

f-as

sess

men

ts

and

eval

uatio

n

Num

ber

ofyo

uth

invo

lved

asre

sear

cher

s

16pe

erin

terv

iew

ers

6on

rese

arch

team

Two

com

mun

ity-b

ased

rese

arch

inte

rns,

30pe

er

recr

uite

rs

Five

rese

arch

team

mem

bers

inea

chto

wn;

15to

20LI

Ga

mem

bers

inea

chto

wn;

Seve

ralh

undr

edyo

uth

surv

eyed

oren

gage

d

inot

her

rese

arch

activ

ities

.

2–4

onPl

anni

ngTe

am

Ince

ntiv

esIn

terv

iew

ers

paid

per

inte

rvie

w,

resp

onde

nts

give

nm

ealc

oupo

ns

for

com

plet

ing

surv

ey

Inte

rns

paid

hour

ly,

resp

onde

nts

give

n$1

5fo

r

com

plet

ing

surv

ey,p

eer

recr

uite

rsre

ceiv

ed$1

0

Res

earc

hte

amm

embe

rsw

ere

paid

as

part

-tim

est

aff;

LIG

am

embe

rsw

ere

paid

appr

oxim

atel

y$5

0fo

rth

eir

wor

kon

the

rese

arch

proj

ect.

No

finan

cial

rem

uner

atio

nR

ecog

nize

d

for

lead

ersh

ipro

le

Yout

hin

volv

emen

tas

rese

arch

ers:

Dev

elop

edin

itial

aim

sYe

sN

oN

oYe

s(d

ecid

eto

utili

zeYA

LPE

proc

ess)

Dec

ided

rese

arch

topi

csN

oN

oYe

s(s

elec

ted

from

listd

eter

min

edby

UN

ICEF

)M

ostt

opic

sar

epr

edet

erm

ined

but

can

add

cont

enta

reas

Dev

elop

edre

sear

chpr

oced

ures

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

(con

tinue

s)


TABL

E1

●Exam

ple

sof

youth

part

icip

ato

ryre

searc

hand

evalu

ati

on

pro

jects

∗ (C

onti

nued)

��

Rur

alad

oles

cent

HIV

UN

ICEF

“Wha

tev

ery

adol

esce

ntha

sa

Yout

han

dA

dult

Lead

ers

for

Inde

pend

ent

Livi

ngS

tudy

prev

enti

onst

udy

righ

tto

know

”–B

osni

a-H

erze

govi

na(R

TK)

Pro

gra

mEx

celle

nce

(YA

LPE)

Dev

elop

edin

stru

men

tsYe

s(id

entifi

edqu

estio

nsan

dw

ordi

ng)

w/r

esea

rch

team

Yes

(rev

iew

edan

dre

vise

ddr

aft

surv

ey)

Yes

(with

assi

stan

cefr

omad

ultf

acili

tato

r)Yo

uth

invo

lved

asco

nsul

tant

sin

tool

deve

lopm

ent.

Can

adap

ttoo

lsto

som

eex

tent

Com

plet

edtr

aini

ngon

right

s

and

resp

onsi

bilit

ies

ofin

volv

ing

hum

ansu

bjec

tsin

rese

arch

No

Yes

No

No

Com

plet

edot

her

trai

ning

in

cond

uctin

gre

sear

ch

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Rec

ruite

dpe

ers

topa

rtic

ipat

eYe

sYe

s(u

sed

part

icip

ant-

driv

en

recr

uitm

ent)

Yes

Yes

Rec

ruite

dad

ults

topa

rtic

ipat

eN

oYe

s(n

otsu

cces

sful

ly)

Yes

Yes

Surv

eyed

peer

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

s

Surv

eyed

adul

tsN

oYe

sYe

sYe

s

Deb

riefe

dab

outr

esea

rch

proc

ess

and

prog

ress

Yes

Yes

(info

rmal

proc

ess)

Yes

(wel

l-de

fined

proc

ess,

cons

iste

ntly

impl

emen

ted)

Yes

Ente

red

data

Yes

(Und

ergr

adua

tes)

No

Yes

Yes

Ana

lyze

dda

taYe

sN

oYe

s(b

oth

qual

itativ

ean

dqu

antit

ativ

e

met

hods

)

Yes

(use

fixed

soft

war

epa

ckag

e)

Inte

rpre

ted

data

Yes

(focu

sgr

oups

)Ye

s(te

amm

eetin

gs)

Yes

(team

mee

tings

)Ye

s

Pres

ente

dfin

ding

sYe

sYe

sYe

sYe

s

Wro

tepu

blic

atio

nsN

oYe

sYe

sYe

s,w

ritin

gre

port

s

Met

with

othe

ryo

uth

rese

arch

ers

tosh

are

findi

ngs

and

expe

rienc

es

Yes

No

Yes

(met

with

othe

rR

TKyo

uth

rese

arch

team

sw

ithin

Bos

nia-

Her

zego

vina

;sen

t

dele

gate

sto

regi

onal

RTK

mee

tings

)

Poss

ibly

,but

nota

lway

s

Impa

cts

ofyo

uth

invo

lvem

ent

in

rese

arch

Incr

ease

dpa

rtic

ipat

ion

by

hard

-to-

reac

hpo

pula

tions

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Mor

eco

mpl

ete

data

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Skill

sde

velo

pmen

tby

yout

hYe

s(in

terv

iew

ers)

Yes

(inte

rns)

Yes

(res

earc

hte

aman

dLI

Ga

mem

bers

)Ye

s

Com

mun

ityre

cogn

ition

ofyo

uth

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

∗ HIV

indi

cate

shu

man

imm

unod

efici

ency

viru

s;R

TK,R

ight

toKn

ow;a

ndLI

Ga,

loca

lres

earc

hgr

oup.


the tools and methodology, to recruiting subjects, col-lecting the data, interpreting the findings, and mak-ing presentations to key community stakeholders. Theywere recruited from a community program that servedrunaway and homeless youth and, at the time of thestudy, had “stable living conditions.” An additional10 interviewers were recruited from the program andwere trained to (1) identify the sample and inclu-sion criteria; (2) obtain informed, confidential con-sent from study subjects; and (3) collect data. Onehundred sixty-five structured 1-hour interviews wereconducted over a 3-month period wherever homelessyouth congregated (homes or apartments, on the street,on rooftops, in malls, in abandoned cars and build-ings, but rarely in shelters). Prior to this study, manymembers of the community were not aware that anyhomeless youth were living in the county (for the fullreport, see http://www.actforyouth.net/documents/ILS%20Final%20Report.pdf ).

Two university students worked closely with theyouth researchers, monitoring and reviewing the com-pleted surveys, developing an electronic database,and entering and cleaning data files. Preliminary dataanalyses were discussed and interpreted by the coreyouth researchers, who also helped develop and de-liver presentations to community stakeholders includ-ing county legislators, funders, human service staff,university researchers, and statewide policy makers.

Rural HIV prevention study (participant-drivenrecruitment)

Participant-driven recruitment (PDR) is an adapta-tion of respondent-driven sampling, developed byHeckathorn and colleagues as a peer-based methodto recruit members of hidden and marginalized pop-ulations to join HIV prevention studies.36–39 The goalsof this study of HIV prevention and intergenerationalcommunication among rural adolescents in upstateNew York State were to (1) obtain baseline data regard-ing knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors related to HIVamong rural youth; (2) adapt and implement the PDRmethod; (3) develop and implement a youth-creatededucational intervention; and (4) evaluate the impactof PDR and the educational intervention by measuringchange at 18 months postbaseline.

A pilot group of nine young people was recruitedthrough human service organizations to modify theresearch plan and questionnaire, and to develop theeducational session. Engaging the pilot group in dis-cussions regarding the design and implementation ofthe study enhanced their familiarity with, and com-mitment to, the research process. These discussionswere taped, transcribed, and coded into themes by bothyouth and adults. Key quotes and themes were pre-sented as posters so that the youth could see concrete

evidence of their own insights: I was at that meeting, but Ididn’t realize we said anything this important. This is reallyimportant! These youth then served as “seeds” to launchthe PDR process in which any youth who completed asurvey and attended an educational session had the op-portunity to recruit other young people to participate.Youth received cash incentives both for completing thesurvey ($15) and for each new participant they recruited($10).

Two members of the pilot group assumed paid re-search positions, in which they planned and facilitatedsurvey and educational sessions, assisted with datainterpretation, and coauthored a journal article aboutthe project.31 They completed the Cornell UniversityHuman Subjects tutorial, assured compliance with in-formed consent procedures, and addressed the uniqueconfidentiality concerns involved in working in small,rural communities. These research interns developedand tested their skills primarily by working in team set-tings, and collaborating with university students andfaculty to administer surveys and conduct sessions.This meant that participatory learning within the team,as well as mentoring, played a key role in their de-velopment of research skills. Like the ILS project, thisproject offered young people opportunities to partici-pate at various levels of intensity, from paid internshipsto intensive consultation as members of a pilot group,to peer recruitment and survey completion.

“What every adolescent has a right to know”(participatory action research)

From 2001 to 2003 UNICEF sponsored a global initia-tive in 14 countries, “What every adolescent has a rightto know” (Right to Know), in which youth worked withadult supporters to adapt participatory action researchtechniques to investigate the impact of HIV/AIDS onyoung people’s lives and communities. The initiativesought both to develop young people’s capabilities andto inform national and global HIV/AIDS communica-tion strategies. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, the partic-ipatory action research team in this effort consisted offive paid youth researchers who were nominated by alocal partner organization and a head researcher whocommuted between three towns. The youth researchersplanned and facilitated activities during meetings, keptrecords (audio and written), wrote reports, and gener-ally were responsible for ensuring that the work stayedfocused on project objectives. Each town also developeda local research group (LIGa) involving 15 to 20 youthwho were 13 to 19 years old. They were responsible fordeveloping a strategy to recruit members in their owntown, with the goal of targeting diverse and representa-tive groups, including young people who (1) misusedsubstances, (2) were war orphans, (3) were involvedin sports and athletics, and (4) were from different


religious groups and sexual orientations. LIGa meet-ings were scheduled to avoid conflict with school orother obligations, while enabling intensive hands-onwork, including planning, survey development, anddata entry and interpretation.

The head researcher and youth research team mem-bers met before and after each of the LIGa meetings. Atthe “premeeting,” the team members reviewed theirduties for the LIGa meetings and made any neces-sary amendments to the planned agenda. At the “post-meeting,” they reviewed the LIGa meeting, drafted anagenda for the next meeting, and defined the rolesteam members would play in facilitating it. The headresearcher was present at the majority of the meet-ings, mainly as an observer. In focus groups conductedfor the overall project evaluation, the LIGa membersviewed the youth research team as more active LIGacolleagues who coordinated the work, rather than hi-erarchically above the LIGa, while they recognized thehead researcher’s ability to facilitate communications,to provide technical support, and to bridge the gap be-tween adults (she was in her 30s) and young people.

Program evaluation and organizational change(Youth and Adult Leadership for Program Excellence)

In addition to research in which youth themselvesare both researchers and the targets of research,youth/adult research teams can also focus on orga-nizational assessment aimed at enhancing programquality. Grounded in YD theory, this level of re-search has evolved out of the recognition by prac-titioners and researchers that young people accrueenormous developmental benefits from meaningfulparticipation.40 When young people have opportuni-ties to hold leadership positions, to be responsible,and to hold significant roles in governance, programplanning, and implementation, multiple benefits arereaped by youth, organizations, and communities.41 At-tempts by YD programs and other organizations toprovide young people with opportunities and mean-ingful roles need to be assessed so that improvementscan be made. The Youth and Adult Leaders for Pro-gram Excellence (YALPE)32,42 resource kit was devel-oped by Camino and Zeldin to assist programs inprogram evaluation and organizational change (avail-able at http://www.actforyouth.net/?yalpe), and is de-signed for use by teams of youth and adults workingin partnership, sharing power, decision making, andresponsibility throughout all phases of the process.

YALPE provides a simple, structured, field-tested re-source kit for youth-serving organizations to conduct arigorous self-assessment, as well as guidance on how touse the evaluation findings for program improvementand to gain support from various stakeholders througha documented evaluation process. The resource kit

guides youth/adult teams through five phases of as-sessment and program improvement: (1) planning andpreparing to conduct a program assessment; (2) collect-ing and compiling data; (3) analyzing and understand-ing the data; (4) sharing results with the group; and (5)action planning and finalizing the report. For organi-zations and programs that are interested in engagingyouth as research partners, the YALPE provides a user-friendly, structured approach to create meaningful anddevelopmentally rich opportunities for young peoplewho do not demand intensive training or instruction.

Outcomes and impacts

Although the four examples described above engagedyouth in innovative ways and for different reasons, sev-eral cross-cutting themes can be distilled with regard tothe perceived benefits of this approach especially for theparticipating youth, but also for communities, and theresearch process.

Youth benefits

All of the projects were successful in creating positivedevelopmental opportunities for young people, pro-viding them with meaningful roles at increasingly ad-vanced levels of complexity and developmental chal-lenge. In essence, these research roles offered youngpeople optimal conditions for development. In all ofthe projects, young people learned about the processof doing research and developed various skills includ-ing how to design and plan a project, develop instru-ments (eg, how to write survey questions), use differentmethodologies and procedures (eg, conduct interviews,lead focus groups), work with data, and interpret find-ings. Many of them gained public speaking skills andlearned how to give presentations to diverse audiences,as well as advocate for issues of importance to them andtheir peers.

In several projects (eg, Rural HIV Prevention andRight to Know initiatives), youth served as peer educa-tors. This deepened their understanding of the materialthey were learning, enabled them to develop teachingskills, and increased their involvement with and com-mitment to the project.

Another cross-cutting theme was that youth re-searchers had opportunities to interact with and buildrelationships with people of different ages, back-grounds, and social networks. This was especially ev-ident in the UNICEF “Right to Know” project whereworkshops brought together youth from differentcountries and regions. Each project enabled youngpeople to form partnerships with adults and work to-gether toward a common goal. In the ILS project, theyouth felt that their adult partners on the research teamlistened to them and valued their ideas and insights.


In the YALPE project, the formation of the youth/adultteam is the foundation of the evaluation process.

Young people were afforded opportunities for differ-ent levels of leadership. Those involved in the Right toKnow project developed group facilitation, planning,and reflection skills. Some of the teams involved youthin addressing local impacts of Right to Know issues.Youth were involved not only in leading the implemen-tation of different aspects of projects but also in usingthe results for action planning, and organizational orpolicy change. An integral feature of the YALPE is foryouth to take on leadership for planning, implemen-tation, analysis, and action. These tasks and steps ofthe research/planning process are clearly laid out inthe tool kit, which enables young people to success-fully and effectively take on the leadership role. Thisis an explicit purpose of the YALPE process, to usedata for action planning and organizational change andimprovement.

The experience of having adults listen to them andact upon their findings gave the youth an increasedsense of agency and personal efficacy. In the ILS project,funding for services was increased, and the county leg-islators invited two of the youth researchers to join theirsubcommittee on transportation to influence bus sched-ules and routes.

Increased civic engagement is another observed out-come. PDR provides an alternate mode of civic interac-tion and participation. Youth who may have hesitatedto attend and speak out at meetings accepted invita-tions from their peers to attend small, informal surveyand discussion sessions, at which they learned about,and commented on, important social issues. Strong en-gagement and sense of ownership of the research bythe “seeds” helped develop momentum in the recruit-ing process. At the same time, soliciting guidance fromstudy participants on good times, locations, and meth-ods of survey administration helped make participa-tion more readily accessible.

Benefits to the research process

We also found that, in each of these examples, the qual-ity of research itself benefited from active youth par-ticipation. Improved access to populations of interestwas found by the ILS research team, which was ableto gain access to hard-to-reach youth, who in all likeli-hood would not have been identified using traditionalresearch methods, since less than 10 percent of the sam-ple was interviewed at homeless shelters. The HIV pre-vention project reached segments of the rural youthpopulation that would not have been reached by tra-ditional methods.

In all four projects, youth provided critical inputduring the development of the instruments to ensurethat the tools were “youth friendly,” using understand-able and accessible language. We also learned the value

of having youth and adults jointly discuss and inter-pret research findings. In the ILS project, the youth re-searchers provided insightful comments that helped tobetter understand the survey results. They also vali-dated the findings and helped assess whether the dataportrayed an accurate picture of reality and where therewere still gaps in our knowledge. It is not a commonpractice for researchers to share their findings with thesubjects or communities studied, but this is a criticalcomponent of participatory research approaches. Thoseaffected by the research are involved not only in collect-ing the data but also in the interpretation and ultimateutilization of the study findings.

The impact of the research was also heightenedbecause community stakeholders were persuaded byhaving the direct input of youth. Quantitative data com-bined with real-life stories shared by the youth pro-vided powerful arguments for action. In the ILS, pol-icy makers and funders became motivated to addressissues faced by homeless youth, and changed fund-ing priorities and service delivery for this previously“invisible” youth population.

Implications for practice

Unlike traditional preparation of academic researchers,the youth involved in these examples trained only a fewdays (ILS), a week (YALPE), or months (Right to Know)to become oriented to research principles, learn data-collection and analysis skills, engage in field researchon sensitive topics, and contribute to utilization dis-cussions. Often this was accomplished in the context ofextremely limited resources, and in some cases, signifi-cant logistical and administrative challenges. The timeconstraints imposed on the ILS project by the need toproduce data quickly limited the time available to pi-lot the tool, resulting in several sections not yieldinguseable data. In addition to assuring adequate time topilot instruments, we also encourage practitioners toprovide ongoing training, with deliberate monitoringof research processes and staff to support both the youthand the data-collection effort.

Taking “youth voice” seriously in participatory re-search sometimes means balancing the conflicting pri-orities between the needs of the young people, and theneeds of the research process. For example, in the ILSproject, the youth researchers rejected having a uni-versity student accompany them on their interviews,fearing that the “presence of an outsider” would limittheir access to certain individuals. However, this re-sulted in having less complete data. There also has tobe a willingness and capacity of the institutions to buildupon the findings and recommendations generated bythe youth researchers.

Our experiences with the youth involvement compo-nent of the Right to Know initiative showed that youth


engagement in participatory research requires carefuland realistic planning, adequate time for learning andpracticing skills, opportunities to critique and revise re-search strategies, involvement in interpreting findings,and opportunities to translate those findings into poli-cies and actions. Youth participatory action researchersrequire “maximum support” (resources, institutionalsupport, choice in relation to level of participation, re-alistic potential to influence future policies and pro-grams, and respect) as well as “maximum challenge.”Furthermore, large-scale institutions that foster youthparticipation in research and evaluation need to directattention toward building upon the unique opportu-nity that they have created for youth researchers fromdifferent settings to meet, share ideas and findings, anddevelop networks of mutual support and challenge thatwill continue to bear fruit long after the research initia-tive has ended.

● Conclusions

The four projects described demonstrate that youthinvolvement in participatory research and evalua-tion provides positive developmental opportunities foryouth and creates a context for intergenerational part-nerships. At the same time, participatory projects cangenerate useful research data, contribute to programand organizational improvement, and energize com-munity mobilization around important social issues.However, efforts to engage youth in research will workbest if care is taken to address the following key con-siderations:

1. All researchers need time to learn, practice, and im-prove their craft. Participatory research, which oftenunfolds in an iterative, cyclical manner, is ideal forthis kind of learning and particularly well suited toengaging adolescents.

2. The timeframe needs to be realistic—long enoughfor the development, testing, and revision of newskills, but not so long that young people are unableto see it through to completion because of their owndevelopmental changes.

3. The work of youth researchers needs to be supportedwith appropriate human, financial, and logisticalresources.

4. Young people need to be engaged in and informedabout the rights and responsibilities involved in “hu-man subjects” research. In three of the four exam-ples described, this did not take place; in the fourth,young people not only completed human subjectstraining but also contributed substantially to makingsure that confidentiality concerns were addressed inan effective, context-specific manner.

5. Organizations that engage youth in participatory

research and evaluation need to take youth voiceseriously by listening to and acting upon youthrecommendations. At the same time, youth recom-mendations should not be endorsed uncritically—the reflection and decision process involving youth-generated recommendations need to be no lessrigorous.

6. Multiple modes of participation are important. Awide range of youth (not just youth who are “stars”)should be engaged, and youth should have an op-portunity to adapt their level of participation to theirchanging developmental needs. It is important toprovide incentives or pathways to “ramping up”participation and assuming increasingly complex re-sponsibilities, as well as ways for youth to reducetheir involvement, while maintaining significant re-lationships with the project, as their developmentalneeds change.

Although the potential of youth participation in re-search to affect individual, organizational, and commu-nity development is great, to date, there has been littlesystematic study documenting these benefits. We havedescribed four different means to engage youth in re-search roles that demonstrate multiple levels of youthparticipation, including consultation, partnership, andleadership. Each project faced obstacles and challenges,but all achieved success. Taken together, they speakto the promise of the approach for advancing knowl-edge, promoting positive YD, improving programs,and strengthening communities by engaging youth inparticipatory research and evaluation efforts.

REFERENCES

1. Kidd SA, Kral MJ. Practicing participatory action research. JCouns Psychol. 2005;52:187–195.

2. Kroeker CJ. The cooperation movement in Nicaragua: em-powerment and accompaniment of severely disadvantagedpeasants. J Soc Issues. 1996;52:123–138.

3. Reason P. Human inquiry as discipline and practice. In: Rea-son P, ed. Participation in Human Inquiry. Thousand Oaks,Calif: Sage; 2001:1–14.

4. Sabo K. Youth participatory evaluation: a field in the making.New Direct Evaluat. 2003;98:1–10.

5. Chambers R. Whose Reality Counts? Putting the First Last. Lon-don: Intermediate Technology; 1997.

6. Greenwood D, Levin M. Introduction to Action Research: SocialResearch for Social Change. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publi-cations; 1998.

7. Cornwall A, Gaventa J. From Users and Choosers to Makers andShapers: Repositioning Participation in Social Policy. Brighton,England: Institute of Development Studies; 2001.

8. Horton M, Freire P. We Make the Road by Walking: Conver-sations on Education and Social Change. Philadelphia: TempleUniversity Press; 1990.


9. Schulz AJ, Israel BA, Zenk S, et al. Psychosocial stress andsocial support as mediators of relationships between in-come, length of residence and depressive symptoms amongAfrican American women on Detroit’s eastside. Soc Sci Med.2006;62(2):510–522.

10. Schulz AJ, Gravlee CC, Williams DR, Israel BA, MentzG, Rowe Z. Discrimination, symptoms of depression, andself-rated health among African American Women in De-troit: Results from a longitudinal analysis. Am J Pub Health.2006;96(7):1265–1270.

11. Srinavasan S, O’Fallon LR, Dearry A. September 2003, Cre-ating healthy communities, healthy homes, healthy people:initiating a research agenda on the built environment andpublic health. AJPH. 2003;93(9):1446–1450.

12. O’Donoghue J, Kirshner B, McLaughlin M. Youth-adult re-search collaborations: bringing youth voice and developmentto the research process. In: Mahoney J, Eccles J, Larson R, eds.After-school Activities: Contexts of Development. Mahway, NJ:Erlbaum; 2004:131–156.

13. Hart R. Children’s Participation: From Tokenism to Citizenship.Florence, Italy: UNICEF, International Child Development;1992.

14. O’Donoghue J, Kirshner B, McLaughlin M. Introduction:moving youth participation forward. N Dir Youth Dev.2002;96:15–26.

15. London J, Zimmerman K, Erbstein N. Youth-led research andevaluation: tools for youth, organizational and communitydevelopment. New Dir Eval. 2003;98:33–45.

16. Powers J, Camino L, Denner J, Harper G, Torre ME. Engag-ing adolescents as researchers: opportunities, obstacles, andinnovation. Presentation at: the Society for Research on Ado-lescents; March 2004; Baltimore, MD.

17. Checkoway B, Richards-Schuster K. Lifting new voices forsocially just communities. Community Youth Dev J. 2001;2:32–37.

18. Checkoway B, Richards-Schuster K. Youth participation incommunity evaluation research. Am J Eval. 2001;24:21–22.

19. Bronfenbrenner U. The Ecology of Human Development: Exper-iments by Nature and Design. Cambridge: Harvard UniversityPress; 1979.

20. Pittman K, Irby M. Preventing Problems or Promoting Devel-opment? Washington, DC: The Forum for Youth Investment,Impact Strategies; 1996. Available at: www.forumfyi.org. Ac-cessed November 10, 2005.

21. Matysik GJ. Involving adolescents in participatory research.Community Youth Dev J. 2000;1:15–19.

22. Sabo K. A Vygotskian perspective on youth participatoryevaluation. New Dir Eval. 2003;98:13–24.

23. Chawla L. Growing Up in an Urbanising World. London: Earth-scan, UNESCO; 2002.

24. Driskell D. Creating Better Cities With Children and Youth:A Manual for Participation. London; Sterling, Va: Earthscan;Paris: UNESCO Pub., MOST/Management of Social Trans-formation; 2002.

25. O’Fallan L, Tyson FL, Dearry A, eds. Successful Models ofCommunity-based Participatory Research: Final Report. Wash-ington, DC: NIEHS; 2000. Available at: http://www.niehs.nih.gov/translat/cbr-final.pdf. Accessed November 5, 2005.

26. Kirshner B, O’Donoghue, McLaughlin M. Youth evaluatingprograms for youth: stories of youth IMPACT. New Dir YouthDev. 2002;96:101–117.

27. Maglajlic RA, Tiffany JS, With the Bosnia-HerzegovinaUNICEF RTK PAR Team (2005). Participatory action re-search with youth in Bosnia and Herzegovina—everyone whois here talks openly and without fear, hoping that we willhelp other adolescents through our work. J Community Pract.2006;14(2):163–181.

28. Goto K. The Application of a Participatory Approach in Health andNutrition Programs: A Case Study of an HIV/AIDS PreventionInitiative Among Youth. Doctoral Dissertation, Cornell Univer-sity, Ithaca, NY; 2004.

29. Sy-ar M. An Evaluation of a Participatory Action Research Ap-proach to Involving Youth in HIV/AIDS Awareness Campaigns inHaiti. MPS Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY; 2004.

30. Lapinski MA. Surviving on our own: the independent livingsurvey project final report. 2004. Available at: http://www.actforyouth.net/documents/ILS%20Final%20Report.pdf.Accessed April 15, 2005.

31. Bianchi A, Bishara D, Enekwe P, et al. Friends inviting friends:participant-driven recruitment in an HIV prevention researchproject. Community Youth Dev J. 2003;4(1):26–31.

32. O’Connor C, Zeldin S. Program assessment and improve-ment through youth-adult partnership: the YALPE resourcekit. J Extension. 2005;43(5):1–4.

33. Rotheram-Borus MJ. Serving runaway and homeless youths.Fam Community Health. 1991;14(3):23–32.

34. Greene J, Ringwalt C, Iachan R. Shelters for runaway andhomeless youths: capacity and occupancy. Child Welfare.1997;76(4):549–561.

35. Van der Ploeg J, Scholte E. Homeless Youth. London: Sage Pub-lications; 1997.

36. Heckathorn D. Respondent-driven sampling: a new ap-proach to the study of hidden population. Soc Probl.1997;44(2):174–199.

37. Heckathorn D. Respondent-driven sampling II: Derivingvalid population estimates from chain-referral samples ofhidden populations. Soc Probl. 2002;49(1):11–34.

38. Heckathorn D, Semaan S, Broadhead RS, Hughes JJ. Exten-sions of respondent-driven sampling: a new approach tothe study of injection drug users aged 18–25. AIDS Behav.2002;6(1):55–67.

39. Salganik MJ, Heckathorn DD. Sampling and estimation inhidden populations using respondent-driven sampling. So-ciol Methodol. 2004;34(1):193–240.

40. Roth J, Brooks-Gunn J, Murray L. Promoting health ado-lescences: synthesis of youth development program evalu-ations. J Res Adolesc. 1998;8:423–459.

41. Zeldin S, McDaniel AK, Toptzes D, Calvert M. Youth inDecision Making: A Study on the Impacts of Youth on Adultsand Organizations. Chavy Chase, Md: National 4-H Coun-cil, University of Wisconsin Extension; 2000. Available at:http://www.atthetable.org/handout.asp?ID=18.

42. Camino L, Zeldin S, Mook C, O’Connor C. Youth and AdultLeaders for Program Excellence (YALPE). 2005. Ithaca: Cor-nell University. Available at: www.actforyouth.net. AccessedApril 1, 2005.

Documents

Engaging Youth in Participatory Research and Evaluation · Engaging Youth in Participatory ... Youth participatory research has roots ... 2001–2003 Bosnia-Herzegovina youth participatory