Creating access or limiting authenticity? An examination of the potential and pitfalls of school-based Youth-Participatory Action Research

Abstract

Youth-Participatory Action Research (YPAR) challenges traditional research hierarchies between young people and adults by situating youth as co-researchers rather than the objects of research. Like all forms of community-engaged research, Youth-Participatory Action Research involves collaborations between scholars and community members, and requires relationship-building to facilitate these partnerships. Power dynamics can be of particular importance in Youth-Participatory Action Research, given the prevalence of adultism in society. Conducting Youth-Participatory Action Research within the context of schools offers a mechanism to increase access for youth to participate, but can also pose challenges to Youth-Participatory Action Research’s liberatory aims and youth’s authentic engagement, given the often-hierarchical nature of schools. To expand research on the affordances and challenges of school-based Youth-Participatory Action Research, we conducted a qualitative self-study, examining two rounds of Youth-Participatory Action Research that occurred within the same Title 1 middle school, one of which took place virtually, via Zoom, and one that occurred in-person, on campus. Drawing upon fieldnotes and reflective memos, we identified key differences in processes and practices that impacted students’ experiences, which focused on project structure, roles and responsibilities of team members, and meeting durations and frequency. We found that increasing accessibility for youth involvement was not ‘one-size-fits-all’, but instead nuanced, based on both the setting and the students. Overall, this study revealed the complexity of conducting Youth-Participatory Action Research in school settings and the contextual factors that may influence student engagement.

Keywords

Adultism power-sharing research practice partnerships school-based research youth-participatory action research

Introduction

While young people are often the subjects of education research, Youth-Participatory Action Research (YPAR) is a unique form of scholarship in which youth are instead situated as co-researchers. Within this action research approach, young people are given the agency to design and implement a study on a topic of their choosing, with the goal of improving conditions in their community (Ozer, 2017). Participating in YPAR can help elevate youth voice in educational settings, especially for students of color who may be otherwise marginalized in such contexts (Bertrand, 2014). However, for YPAR to achieve its goals of liberation and empowerment, attention must be paid to power-sharing and the building of equitable relationships between youth and adult collaborators (Bettencourt, 2020). As such, scholars need to examine not just the effects and outcomes of YPAR projects, but also the practices and processes that occur within such spaces to facilitate impactful research and action (Malorni et al., 2022), as these relational and structural choices can be highly influential.

YPAR projects occur within complex developmental settings (Renick et al., 2024) and adults must also attend to these external factors, especially when facilitating YPAR within the context of schools, which have their own nuanced climates (Call-Cummings et al., 2022). As many scholars have noted, schools can be sites of harm and injustice for youth (Tuck and Yang, 2013), where they are often denied meaningful opportunities to contribute to leadership and decision-making (Zion et al., 2025). Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic introduced new challenges to YPAR facilitation, as many in-person projects shifted online (Marciano et al., 2020), and disparities in access to reliable Internet and working devices were significant (Friedman et al., 2021). However, previous research has also highlighted the potential of online tools to expand the reach of YPAR (Kornbluh et al., 2016), suggesting this medium of YPAR facilitation may offer both obstacles and opportunities.

In order to better understand the impacts of varied processes and practices in school-based YPAR, as well as their implications for youth participation, we conducted a qualitative self-study examining two rounds of YPAR conducted in collaboration with the same Title 1 middle school. One round was held virtually, via Zoom meetings after-school in the spring of 2021, and one was led in-person, during the school day in the spring of 2022. Analyzing these different, but connected rounds of YPAR revealed the affordances and difficulties of a range of YPAR facilitation styles and logistical structures. In addition to the practical implications offered by this study, this exploration also provides theoretical insights into the inherent tensions of trying to conduct authentic YPAR within the sometimes limiting contexts of schools.

Power-sharing within YPAR

Within the context of YPAR, power-sharing involves adults facilitating spaces where youth are given control and agency, which is only possible through building trust and creating an empowering environment (Bettencourt, 2020; Iacono et al., 2024). However, authentic power-sharing can be challenging due to what is called “adultism,” the negative attitudes about youth and perceptions about their proper roles in society that are often reinforced by societal structures (Flasher, 1978). In schools, this adultism can manifest structurally, such as not allowing youth to be a part of school decision-making (Bertrand et al., 2023), and relationally, such as adults dismissing or disrespecting youth’s lived experiences (Oto, 2023). Such adultism harms young people, denying their right to be heard and considered in settings that include them (Zeldin et al., 2013). Through its focus on youth experiences and expertise, YPAR can be a tool to disrupt adultism, by both amplifying youth’s role in research and advocating for youth-directed policy change (Cammarota and Fine, 2008; Ozer, 2017), but only if adult facilitators are mindful of their positionality and are intentional in their approach to facilitating empowering environments (Bettencourt, 2020; Iacono et al., 2024). For example, adults working in these capacities must challenge pre-existing views they may hold of youth as immature, disengaged learners, especially for youth in urban settings (Rubin et al., 2016). Evidence has shown that when students are given the opportunity to be knowledgeable and empowered individuals, such as in these YPAR settings, they are able to engage in critical research and take meaningful action (Rubin et al., 2016). As such, much scholarship on power-sharing within YPAR, as well as action research more broadly, has focused on the role of adult facilitators and the research process itself (Iacono et al., 2024; Kirshner, 2010).

Importance of relationships and roles

The broader field of participatory-action research (PAR) offers additional insights into how to authentically share power within YPAR. PAR seeks to disrupt traditional hierarchies that exist between researchers and communities, as well as amplify community voices in knowledge production (Wallerstein et al., 2019). However, accomplishing this goal is complex, given the many different, and often hierarchical, systems in which such projects occur (Stoecker, 2009), like schools (Call-Cummings et al., 2022). Schools in particular can be a fraught location for advancing power-sharing, due to historical debates about the role and function of epistemic authority in education, such as the value of classroom teachers being seen as subject matter experts, compared to their students (Neiman, 1986; Sayles-Hannon, 2012).

In recognition of this, Glass and Newman (2015) suggested that “Ethical and epistemic entanglements are not straightened out through CCBR [collaborative, community-based research], but rather, these entanglements are themselves a focus of attention and play a role in all aspects of the research” (p. 30). This affirms that these tensions are not inherently addressed through the adoption of more participatory research approaches, but rather that these forms of research provide an opportunity for greater interrogation of and attention to power dynamics (Glass and Newman, 2015). Along these lines, establishing equitable relationship dynamics and understanding between researchers and participants allows power to be shared between parties, which can increase youth buy-in and support participant retention, especially in virtual contexts (Argañaraz Gomez et al., 2025). Therefore, academics must approach these collaborations with a focus on relationships and an openness to continuously iterate on research activities, as based on collaborator feedback (Glass and Newman, 2015).

Additional scholarship in the field has further affirmed the importance of understanding and unpacking the relationships between researchers and community members in these collaborations, providing additional insights for YPAR facilitators. Bang and Vossoughi (2016) highlight the importance of role re-mediation in such work, interrogating who occupies what responsibilities in these partnerships and the implications of these roles on power dynamics (Bang and Vossoughi, 2016). As they note, an examination of relational dynamics, particularly regarding power and privilege, is essential for creating more equitable collaborative relationships in research partnerships (Bang and Vossoughi, 2016). The concept of role re-mediation has been specifically applied to YPAR, highlighting the importance of adult facilitators reflecting on how they collaborate with youth, given the increased power inequities often present in such partnerships (Bertrand et al., 2017).

Considering systems of oppression

Further research on power dynamics within the context of PAR with youth has also shown the importance of attending to systems of oppression, like adultism and white supremacy culture, which can further influence power dynamics among collaborators and has implications for power-sharing within YPAR (Teixeira et al., 2021). Often, societal structures like academia reify these oppressive systems, and as most scholars work within these settings, personal accountability and reflection on the part of academics can be especially important for creating equitable partnerships within the context of YPAR (Teixeira et al., 2021). Related research has underscored the importance of adults, while being mindful of their privilege and aiming not to dominate such collaborations, taking on crucial roles to support and assist youth in their research endeavors, as informed by their societal power and prior experiences (Kirshner, 2010; Lac et al., 2021). Ultimately, there are a multitude of relational and contextual factors for YPAR facilitators to consider when seeking to create spaces of authentic power-sharing with youth, as informed by a range of community-engaged research approaches.

YPAR in schools

YPAR is commonly conducted in the context of schools, where youth spend the majority of their time and are often excluded from school decision-making (Zion et al., 2025). Adultism is inherent in traditional schooling; schools often employ what Paulo Freire called the banking model of education, in which students are situated as empty vessels to be filled with knowledge, rather than individuals holding their own expertise (Freire, 1970). While school-based YPAR can challenge this dynamic and disrupt youth-adult hierarchies, the context of schools can make such work difficult (Bertrand et al., 2023). For example, scholars conducting YPAR within schools have identified the bounded empowerment that can sometimes occur (Ozer et al., 2013), wherein youth are granted some agency, but are also limited in their ability to make decisions, particularly in their action efforts (Ozer et al., 2013). Some of the ways schools function and operate are also seemingly in conflict with the processes and goals of YPAR (Rubin et al., 2017). Specifically, tensions have been observed between the flexibility needed in YPAR and the rigid nature of school structures, as well as between the youth-directed aims of YPAR and the adult-driven norms of schools (Rubin et al., 2017). Some have also employed the concept of navigational tools, skills and knowledge to succeed in the existing world, compared to transformational tools, skills and knowledge to build a new, more idealized world, as a means by which to understand the skills and opportunities YPAR offers youth within school settings (Brion-Meisels and Alter, 2018). Relatedly, questions exist as to whether YPAR can truly serve as a form of resistance and advance social justice, when occurring within the confines of school settings (Cammarota and Fine, 2008; Tuck and Yang, 2013).

Despite the challenges inherent in school-based YPAR, many continue to explore it as a hospitable site for such projects, due both to the potential accessibility it offers and the ways in which it can support academic outcomes (Voight and Velez, 2018). As such, some have examined whether conducting YPAR in school settings presents too strong a risk of inhibiting its participatory aims or if these sites can be leveraged as an access point (Brion-Meisels and Alter, 2018) for participatory research. Such studies suggest the context, relationships, and urgency of school settings can create challenges to the effective implementation of YPAR and youth’s authentic involvement as co-researchers (Brion-Meisels and Alter, 2018). Furthermore, when occurring within schools, especially elite ones, YPAR projects may inadvertently privilege students who perform well within those school contexts (Keddie, 2021). Ultimately, a clear tension exists between the inherent limitations school settings present for implementing YPAR and the potential opportunities these settings offer for students to participate in these projects, who might not otherwise be able to (Rubin et al., 2017).

Conducting YPAR online

In reflecting on considerations of YPAR facilitation, conducting YPAR online provides a unique operationalization of this approach to examine. While there were instances of YPAR being conducted virtually in the past (Kornbluh et al., 2016), there was an increase in virtual YPAR during the COVID-19 pandemic, when such projects could no longer occur in person (Renick et al., 2024). Existing research on conducting YPAR online during this time found that, to sustain these projects, facilitators needed to adopt flexible and inclusive approaches to the use of technology, in recognition of youth’s diverse circumstances (Renick et al., 2024), and that the virtual context may create challenges to community-building (Rivera et al., 2022). Furthermore, while these online contexts allowed participants and researchers to connect despite COVID-19 restrictions, in some instances they became privileged spaces that certain youth could not access, especially those who lacked the technological resources or who had external responsibilities (Argañaraz Gomez et al., 2025). Often, students from marginalized groups, such as those who are low-income or students of color, lack access to computers, technological/computational skills, and reliable WiFi, especially when compared to their White counterparts (Argañaraz Gomez et al., 2025). In addition, the virtual space can pose other challenges, as such youth may be busy with at-home or familial responsibilities (Renick and Reich, 2022). However, these online contexts can also serve as a window into youth’s everyday lives, acting as a bridge between the researchers and the families of the participants (Argañaraz Gomez et al., 2025). Ultimately, research on conducting YPAR online during the COVID-19 pandemic revealed both the ways in which such approaches allowed youth to stay connected and engaged, as well as how this virtual context may have been inaccessible for some youth.

Methods

Context

This study draws upon two rounds of YPAR that took place as a part of a research-practice partnership (Coburn and Penuel, 2016) between a university and a Title 1 middle school in Southern California. Most students at this middle school are Latine (69%) and qualify for free or reduced lunch (66%). The first round of YPAR took place during the spring of 2021 and the second round occurred in the spring of 2022, with each project lasting 12 weeks. The first author raised the idea to conduct YPAR to the current middle school principal in 2020, a year and a half into their collaboration, in light of a stated school goal to increase student voice on campus. Round one of YPAR served as one of the studies for the first author’s dissertation, which focused on examining YPAR as a tool for school climate improvement, and entailed 14 students meeting twice a week for 45 minutes, after-school via Zoom. These meetings were facilitated by the first author, as well as a team of three undergraduate research assistants, including the second author. For more information on that YPAR project, please see Renick and Reich, 2023.

Round two of YPAR was conducted as a result of the success of round one and involved a varying range of students meeting once a week for 20 minutes, in-person at the participating school, during their study hall period. These meetings were again facilitated by the first author, as well as a team of four undergraduate research assistants, including the second author. Approval for completing these YPAR projects was provided by the partnering district’s Department of Assessment, Research, and Accountability and university Institutional Review Board approval was obtained as well.

Current study

To better understand the impacts of various facilitation and structural practices in school-based YPAR, we examined these two rounds of YPAR. As outlined by existing literature, we suggest that both the level of youth participation and the extent of integration with the school can exist on a spectrum within the context of YPAR projects. Informed by this, we draw upon our two rounds of YPAR to see how different design elements of our projects influenced our ability to conduct school-based YPAR that stayed true to its liberatory goals. With this study, we aim to further explore the question posed by Brion-Meisels and Alter (2018) “Is it possible for educators to use the setting of school as an access point for the type of participatory, praxis-oriented intellectual engagement that YPAR provides? Or does bringing YPAR into school settings risk diluting the very essence of the process that we seek to engage?” (p. 432) Specifically, we hope to expand on existing work by exploring the observed outcomes of different school-based YPAR structures and practices, with a focus on balancing both access and authenticity. In this analysis, we seek to increase understanding of the obstacles and opportunities of school-based YPAR, showcasing the strategies we employed and offering implications both theoretically and practically.

Qualitative self-study

We utilized a qualitative self-study approach (Bullough and Pinnegar, 2001), drawing on multiple sources of data related to each round of YPAR. Qualitative self-study is a method popularized in the field of teacher education, as a means by which to reflect on and improve one’s own pedagogical practice (Bullough and Pinnegar, 2001; Hamilton and Pinnegar, 2009). Unlike auto-ethnography, which analyzes the self in the broader societal and cultural context, self-study specifically focuses on one’s practices and actions, utilizing reflection as a key analytic method, and centering improvement as an outcome (Hamilton et al., 2008). Given our study’s focus on our own facilitation practices and goal of improving YPAR facilitation, we felt self-study was an appropriate methodology to utilize.

Data sources and analytic approach

Aligned with self-study methodology (Hamilton et al., 2008), for our analysis, we reviewed field notes from planning meetings with the research team and school partners, as well as field notes from project meetings with students. We both maintained detailed notes for all meetings related to each YPAR project. To start, we reviewed those field notes to generate potential areas of focus for our analysis. We then identified a set of four central questions to guide our self-reflection, informed by our initial observations, typical self-study methodology (Bullough and Pinnegar, 2001) and existing YPAR literature. These questions assisted in the generation of data, but did not serve as our research questions. The questions we utilized were the following:

1. What were all the differences between the first and second round of the YPAR project?

a. Of those differences, what seemed to be the most noteworthy ones?

b. Of the most noteworthy differences, what was their impact between the two rounds?

c. How did the first round of YPAR inform the second round?

2. How do we consider these differences in relation to the process and results of YPAR?

a. How do we see our choices mapping onto providing students navigational tools—skills and knowledge to succeed in the world as it is—and transformational tools—skills and knowledge to build the world into what it should be?

3. In considering all the “players” involved in the projects (e.g., university faculty, graduate students, undergraduate students, middle school students, school staff, district staff, etc.), what conflicts of interest or tensions existed?

4. In reflecting on how the two rounds went, how were power relations and hierarchies navigated?

a. Were there ways in which we successfully reduced power imbalances?

b. Were there ways in which power dynamics were not addressed?

Each author drafted reflective memos responding to these questions, drawing upon our collective field notes. We then read each other’s reflective memos and met to discuss their commonalities. Through our iterative conversations on these memos, we categorized our joint reflections into thematic categories (Braun and Clark, 2012), representing the key differences between the two rounds, as well as the designated impacts of these differences. We continued to meet to discuss and refine these thematic categories until finalized.

Positionality

Jennifer (Author 1)

The first author served as the lead facilitator on both rounds of YPAR, which occurred during the final two years of her doctoral program. She also acted as the primary facilitator of the research-practice partnership in which the YPAR projects took place. In her role as lead YPAR facilitator, she drafted and led all meeting curriculum, acted as the primary point of contact for participants and school collaborators, and supervised all undergraduate research assistants. Jennifer’s commitment to YPAR and elevating youth voice in research is influenced by her time as a youth activist, as well as her professional experiences working in schools and non-profit organizations prior to graduate school. She is a White, cis-gender woman, who seeks to work in solidarity with communities of which she is not a part, and this informs her approach to community-engaged research.

Giesi (Author 2)

The second author served as an undergraduate research assistant throughout both rounds of YPAR during his third and fourth year of undergrad. He supported the efforts of the primary facilitator in a variety of different ways, such as leading small group discussions with student participants, taking in-depth field notes, and assisting with meeting facilitation. He is a Latino, cis-gender man, whose identity has been hugely influential in his education and career. Coming from a single parent home in a low-income community, he seeks to improve and make changes within underserved communities like South Central Los Angeles, where he grew up.

Influence of positionality

Our identities influenced both the YPAR projects themselves, as well as our interpretation of the data. Because Jennifer (Author 1) is older and holds identities shared by a majority of the current teacher workforce (being White and female), she had to be particularly mindful of the power students assigned to her and the ways they related to her as they might relate to a teacher. For example, during the first round of YPAR, when students were struggling to come to a consensus, some students would ask her to “just tell us what to do,” assuming she knew the right answer. Conversely, Giesi (Author 2) had certain shared identities with the students, which helped him to build positive and more equitable relationships with them. As an example, when facilitating small group conversations during the second round of YPAR, he was able to employ his cultural understanding and lived experience to gain students’ trust and keep them engaged, especially for male students, as the other facilitators involved were all women. In addition, the specific roles we took on during the YPAR projects influenced how we approached data analysis, as the project components in which we were more involved may have been more central in our reflections, given our sharper memory of them.

Results

In comparing the two rounds of YPAR completed, we identified three key areas of difference that had implications for how students were able to be involved and how impactful the project was. This centered around project structure, roles and responsibilities of team members, and meeting durations and frequency. While these differences were largely practical, we found that they had a meaningful influence on how the projects offered accessibility and authenticity.

Project structure

Consenting procedures

There were a number of influential changes in project structure between the first and second round of YPAR. To start, each round of YPAR utilized different consenting processes. For round one, project meetings were held online and after-school, with no school staff present in the online meetings. As such, the school required parent or guardian permission to participate in the project. In addition, the project served as a study of the first author’s dissertation, meaning student data would be collected and analyzed for published research, which necessitated a full consent and assent process, as approved by an Institutional Review Board. This led to a very structured participant recruitment process, which was co-designed with school staff, and entailed teachers of targeted classes, programs, and electives sharing study information with parents. Parents who were interested in having their child participate completed consent forms, which granted the research team permission to contact their child via the method they requested and provided (i.e., email address or phone number). Interested students then attended an initial meeting, wherein they completed assent forms if they wished to participate in the project. While only allowing student participation if their parents or guardians provided consent in some ways reified adultist norms, this was unavoidable as it was a requirement by the school, since the project took place after-school with no school staff present.

Round two of YPAR was conducted in-person, during the school day, with hopes of this structure being more accessible for a wider range of students to be able to participate. The second round occurred at the request of the school, without a specific research goal in mind, which meant collecting and analyzing student data for published research was not a necessity. As such, the main purpose of this round was to continue to offer students a voice in school decision-making, without having the additional element of being a part of a dissertation study. However, to provide the opportunity to collect and analyze data, Institutional Review Board approval was obtained, and a full consent and assent process was created. Initially, the meetings were to occur with just the research team in the room and this lack of school staff present would require full parental permission to participate. The first recruitment process was the same as round one, with selected teachers providing parents with study information. Students from round one were also invited to return if they were interested. When this process did not return a sufficient number of participants, Institutional Review Board approval was obtained to send a mass email to all parents, as well as post flyers on campus. However, additional recruitment measures were still needed to identify more student participants.

One of the teachers who actively supported round one suggested shifting to meeting in her class, with her present, which would allow interested students whose parents had not completed interest forms to attend an initial meeting. If she was in the room the whole time, the school did not require parental permission to participate. The goal was to invite students from all over the school to attend an initial meeting so that they could complete an assent form and obtain parental consent if they were interested in participating. However, because formal data collection was not required, the research team could also pause student data collection, to allow students to participate without completing a full consent process. We ultimately decided that shifting to this approach would best meet our goal of recruiting a more diverse range of student participants (e.g., those whose parents or guardians may not check school emails), and that it was worth it to shift our consenting process, even if it meant not collecting student data this round.

Observed impacts

We observed a number of impacts as a result of these different consenting procedures. First, having just some students formally consented in round two, compared to having all students formally consented in round one, meant there were differences among students in the same group. In particular, the adult research team only had the contact information of formally consented students, as we did not feel it was appropriate to solicit contact information from students whose parents had not provided written permission for them to participate. However, this meant that in round two, some students would receive project reminders or updates via phone or email, while others would not. This divide had the potential to create hierarchies between the students, as some had greater access to and support from the adult research team. The level of interaction between the adult researchers and students was limited and unequal in round two, which we observed as reducing certain students’ levels of project involvement, thus reducing the youth participants’ authentic engagement. In addition, the lack of formal enrollment led to less consistency in students remaining involved in the YPAR project. In round one, we had a steady group of 14 students attending meetings throughout the project. In round two, meeting attendance fluctuated greatly, with some meetings having 27 students present and others having five. Not having a cohesive and consistent group lessened the depth of the students’ participation and engagement in the YPAR process.

While there were negative impacts of the reduced consenting process, a positive impact we saw was that there were some students for whom it seemed participation was only possible because formal parental permission and consent was not required. In particular, certain school staff expressed surprise that particular students they classified as “disengaged” or “difficult” were participating, and suggested obtaining parental permission or consent for those students would have been unlikely, given the school’s difficulties getting in contact with those students’ primary caregivers. As such, we found the different levels of consenting processes across the two rounds of YPAR to provide both affordances and obstacles, in some ways increasing access, but in others, limiting engagement.

Meeting in-school versus after-school

As mentioned earlier, the first round of YPAR was conducted after-school, because that was easiest for the school, whereas the second round of YPAR was conducted during the school day, with the hope of this being more accessible for students. In round one, we observed some challenges with meeting after-school, as some students who initially signed up discontinued their involvement once extracurricular activities, like sports, resumed. In addition, some of the students involved had varying after-school availability, based on their parents’ work schedules or other family responsibilities. We also reflected that some students who provided caregiving for siblings may not have been able to participate in round one because it took place after-school.

It was these reflections that informed our decision to have the second round of YPAR take place during the school day; our goal with this shift was to make joining the project more accessible for a more diverse group of students. However, we found some challenges with meeting during the school day. First, meeting in-school limited our choice in scheduling. When meeting after-school, we could select meeting time, duration, and frequency, as we did not have to work within the school schedule, beyond its end time. However, meeting during the school day meant working within the daily schedule of the school. The only available time frame for the meetings within the school day was during their study hall period, which lasted 20 minutes. Because of other programming also held during study hall, we were only able to host the meetings one day a week. While meeting during the school day meant we did not have to compete with students’ family responsibilities for their time, our meeting time did conflict with other study hall activities. Some of the students from round one who wanted to return for round two were not able to because they were part of a school club that also met during study hall. Students could also be assigned to see a teacher during a particular study hall block, depending on how they were performing academically, and some students during round two had to miss meetings because they needed to meet with a teacher during that same time.

Observed impacts

The main impacts we found of meeting after-school versus during the school day were who was available to join the group and how much control we had over meeting logistics. We initially believed meeting in-person would be universally more accessible for students, but found in our comparison that it was only more accessible for some students. Rather than one meeting time being more accessible for all students, it varied based on the particular student’s circumstances (e.g., if they had more time commitments during or after the school day).

In addition, meeting in-person meant sacrificing some of our autonomy when it came to scheduling meetings. After-school meeting durations and frequency were set by the research team, based on what worked best for the students and what needed to be accomplished. In addition, the adult researchers were able to solicit student feedback on scheduling throughout the project and adjust as needed, at one point moving meeting times back slightly to better accommodate youth’s schedules. This not only increased student attendance at meetings, it also supported their autonomy within the project. In-school meeting durations and frequency were set by school staff, based on what was most convenient and feasible within the existing school day, rather than what worked best for the students or the project goals. Our two rounds of YPAR ended up primarily involving different cohorts of students, in part because of their different meeting time. As such, we found that shifting from meeting after-school to in-school was not always an improvement in accessibility and that universal accessibility may be an unattainable goal.

Meeting online versus in-person

Because round one of YPAR took place in the spring of 2021, all meetings were conducted virtually, to reduce the risk of contracting COVID-19. Round two of YPAR took place during the spring of 2022, when most in-person activities had resumed and vaccines were widely available in the United States, and thus was conducted in-person. The different meeting modalities had implications for student participation and engagement. Notably, when meeting online, there were differences in students’ ability to access the meetings. Students joined from different settings (e.g., some in their homes, some in cars, some from their parents’ workplaces) and via different devices (e.g., cellphone, computer, etc.). Some students had devices that weren’t fully functional (e.g., a computer that did not have a working webcam or microphone) and some students had unstable WiFi or an insufficient Internet connection. These differences influenced how much and in what ways students could participate in meetings, as some could contribute vocally and others could only use the chat function. Comparatively, when meeting in-person, students were all in the same room and could all participate in the same fashion.

There were also different facilitation opportunities in an online versus in-person format. When meeting online, facilitators utilized participation tools like Zoom polls, emoji reactions, and the chat function, to collect student feedback outside of just verbal interactions. Similarly, if students had clarification questions or comments, they could privately message a member of the research team via the chat, without having to verbally ask a question. These features for online meetings offered additional ways to gather student feedback, both in recognition of differing levels of access and of comfort speaking verbally. While these opportunities were not available when meeting in-person, in-person meetings did allow for more small group discussions beyond just what Zoom breakout rooms would accommodate, and increased direct interaction with the adult research team. Because there was greater potential for side conversations among students in-person, there was also an increased amount of classroom management necessary when meeting this way. When meeting online, issues of students talking over one another did not occur, though side conversations could have been occurring outside of meeting spaces. However, facilitators sometimes needed to get creative to encourage engagement when meeting online (e.g., posing targeted questions, shifting to breakout rooms, etc.), as it seemed easier for students to disengage in that format.

Observed impacts

We found meeting online offered some unexpected affordances for facilitating meetings in ways that accommodated a range of participation styles, outside of just verbal communication, to support authentic engagement. Alternately, in-person meetings seemed to offer a more even playing field for engagement, wherein students joined from the same setting and had the same access to participate. Furthermore, meeting online during round one likely excluded certain students who did not have access to WiFi or a working electronic device; this meeting format also had the potential to create hierarchies between students, based on their differing access to the meetings as a result of disparate technological resources. Overall, we found that, largely, meeting in-person seemed to create more equity among student participants in their opportunities for engagement, even though there were some surprising affordances of meeting online.

Roles and responsibilities of team members

Another key area of difference between the two rounds of YPAR were the roles and responsibilities of team members. Because round one was mainly facilitated out of school, the responsibilities of the school-based team members (e.g., teachers, administrators, etc.) were more contained. School staff did play key roles in co-designing a recruitment process and sharing study information, but beyond that, the project was mainly facilitated by individuals based at the partnering university (e.g., graduate students, faculty members, and undergraduate research assistants). The first author was in regular contact with the principal about the project, who provided feedback on how the project might work within existing school structures (e.g., suggesting which administrative meeting the students could present their research). In addition, because of the students’ chosen research topic, school food, a partnership was built with the school’s cafeteria manager, as well as a nutrition specialist from the district. Through this collaboration, students received a presentation about school food policy and had the opportunity to tour their cafeteria’s kitchen, both of which gave them deeper insight into their research topic and agency in designing their study. School staff were essential to the project’s success, but occupied very specific and contained roles in round one.

Because round two was more embedded within the school, there were greater responsibilities placed upon school-based team members. For instance, an assistant principal was initially assigned to help facilitate the in-person logistics of round two of the project (e.g., room reservations, student call slips, etc.). However, that assistant principal unexpectedly left her position during the fall semester, meaning there was no longer a designated staff member who could assist round two of the project. As such, our start date was delayed by a few months until there was more school capacity to help with logistics. Once the project did begin, meeting in-person during the school day required coordinating with the school office staff to ensure there was a room available and that students received call slips to attend the meetings. This differed from round one, when the first author had permission to contact students directly about meetings and could coordinate the meeting location and time herself, since it was via Zoom.

Understandably, the school office staff were often busy and had to prioritize other, more pressing tasks. Therefore, they would sometimes not have the capacity to send out the call slips we requested or reserve the room, and the university-based team did not have the ability to do these tasks as non-school employees. Unfortunately, some students would complain about not receiving call slips to attend the meetings, as they felt they were being excluded. As we neared the end of the school year, these issues increased in frequency when the school office staff had additional tasks to complete. Toward the final weeks of round two, it became common for us to arrive on campus only to find out that students had not received their call slips.

Another shift in roles was that a teacher was in the room during meetings for the second round of YPAR. This decision was made to increase accessibility for students, as discussed previously regarding the consenting process. We were very grateful for the teacher volunteering to take on this additional responsibility and she was a great ally to us, as well as the students. However, we did notice that having her in the room shifted some relational dynamics, in particular with youth-adult hierarchies. Some students who joined the group also had this teacher as an instructor in one of their classes, whereas others did not, leading to different levels of comfort with her. While some students who had her as a teacher seemed to feel more comfortable with her there, given their positive relationship, others related to her in a way reflective of a traditional teacher-student dynamic, and seemed to feel less comfortable speaking up in her presence. In addition, given her role within the school, her attendance sometimes reduced what students could discuss. For example, when identifying potential research topics, one student mentioned a staff member on campus who they felt was unfair in their treatment of students. Before we could respond, the teacher said that they could not discuss that in the group and that focusing on an individual staff member would not be allowed. This response made sense based on her role as a school employee, but limited students’ ability to share their ideas and have full autonomy in selecting a research topic.

Observed impacts

Ultimately, we found that expanding the role of school staff in our project led to some challenges. In addition to school employees being very busy and often juggling multiple responsibilities, many of which could not all be reasonably accomplished during the workday, there is also frequent turnover in public school employees. Ultimately, and understandably, school employees’ top priority is their main job duties, not supporting a supplemental research project. As such, being more reliant on school staff for some aspects of the project once it was more embedded into the school day made it harder for the project to run smoothly. When the university research team was in charge of coordination and logistics, we could ensure such tasks were completed, because we had fewer competing priorities. In addition, we observed that involving school employees in the YPAR meetings was sometimes an obstacle to power-sharing between youth and adults, as students may relate to such adults in a more hierarchical way and those adults may not be in a position to oversee research on potentially sensitive topics. In this way, we sometimes found it easier to authentically share power with youth as individuals working outside of the school, since we were not as limited in what kinds of research we could support and did not have any pre-existing relationships with the students.

Meeting durations and frequency

As discussed previously, there was a difference in how much time was spent in meetings between round one and round two. Students in round one met twice a week for 45 minutes, meaning they were in YPAR meetings for 1.5 hours each week. Students in round two met once a week for 20 minutes, meaning their weekly time spent in meetings was much less. These differences in meeting duration and frequency were a result of shifting meeting times from after school, to during the school day.

Observed impacts

We noticed this difference in meeting duration and frequency impacted the projects in several ways. To start, there was less time for relationship-building in round two. During round one, significant time was spent building community among the students and between the students and adult facilitators. However, the reduced time in round two, as well as a lack of consistency in student participants, meant there was less relationship-building within the group. In round one, we felt we got to know the students better as individuals and that the group was more cohesive and connected as a whole. In round two, we did not get to know the students as well, especially those who were not formally enrolled in the project, and the overall group of students was a bit more divided, with students mainly staying in small cliques.

This limited time also influenced how the students’ research projects were designed and implemented. In round one, considerable time was spent exploring possible topics of research, with many scaffolded activities to help students develop their ideas. The students were mainly divided between two research topics and we discussed the possibility of conducting two studies, compared with just one. Time was given for students to determine the pros and cons of each choice, and ultimately vote to focus on just one topic. Then, the students collaboratively designed a decision-making process by which to select their one topic, culminating in another vote. We felt this approach supported power-sharing with youth, as well as increased consensus about and buy-in for the project. However, this approach was also time consuming and we did not have adequate time to facilitate such a process in round two. As such, rather than engaging in a thorough process of consensus building, we opted to let the students pursue their separate topics of interest, which led to three main smaller groups exploring different topics. We felt this strategy allowed for more student autonomy, given the time constraints, and was preferable to forcing a single topic focus as decided by the adult researchers. Conversely, this strategy meant the project was somewhat disjointed and disconnected, and the cliques among students were reinforced.

Another impact of the limited time was a difference in the depth of research projects. Given the single focus and increased time in round one, students were better able to develop their research questions and a data collection plan. More meeting time was available to explore different research methods, giving students expanded opportunities to learn about the research process and adopt identities as co-researchers. The single focus also allowed us to collaborate with additional adult stakeholders as relevant to the specific research topic, which was not feasible given the disparate research areas in round two. Furthermore, the shorter meeting durations and lessened frequency in round two limited the time available for training in research methods, which meant students’ studies were not able to be as fully realized. In addition, because smaller groups were exploring their own studies, their capacity was limited, as fewer students were contributing to data collection and analysis. Overall, having shorter and fewer meetings posed major challenges for the kind of authentic engagement that is the goal of YPAR, from community-building to study design and implementation.

Discussion

In reflecting on the outcomes of the different facilitation practices and logistical structures across our two rounds of YPAR, increasing accessibility and opportunities for engagement were more complex than initially anticipated, especially within the context of schools, which have been observed as a potentially inhospitable site for such efforts (Cammarota and Fine, 2008; Tuck and Yang, 2013; Zion et al., 2025). For example, some decisions we thought would universally improve access (e.g., meeting during the school day), only improved conditions for some, while worsening them for others. We also noted that some choices that might increase accessibility (e.g., meeting on campus) also necessitated greater reliance on and distribution of responsibilities to school staff. This posed a challenge to project facilitation and management, due to these individuals’ work responsibilities at the school, compared with the university-based research team who had more capacity to invest in the research project. This is in no way meant as a critique of these school staff, who were very generous in providing any time to the research project and often juggling many different responsibilities within limited work time. It is rather meant as a recognition of the considerations necessary when conducting school-based PAR.

Considering our exploration of Brion-Meisels and Alter’s question as to whether or not schools can act as an access point for YPAR, without diluting its essence, we found, on the whole, that greater integration within the school seemingly led to practices that limited the depth of youth involvement in the YPAR projects. Because we conceptualize both the level of integration within the school and the extent of involvement of the youth participants as spectrums, we do not feel there is a simple yes or no answer to Brion-Meisels and Alter’s question. Rather, we found that greater integration with a school site can have consequences for how deeply youth can be involved in the YPAR project, due in part to this embeddedness leading to less meeting time and reduced freedom of youth expression, in our particular school setting. However, this may vary based on the participating school and its specific conditions, suggesting that those conducting YPAR must carefully analyze school context to assess how much capacity there is to support YPAR. In some schools, deeper integration with a school site may not hinder youth involvement, whereas in others, it may limit youth involvement severely.

As such, we feel the decision as to whether or not to conduct YPAR within schools should be informed by both an assessment of the current school context and the needs of the participating youth, as well as a reflection on the goals of the project. As has been established, the level of youth involvement varies across YPAR projects (Jacquez et al., 2013). Therefore, in some situations, adult facilitators may feel that the increased accessibility afforded by conducting YPAR within a school outweighs the potential limitations of authentic youth engagement, potentially due in part to specific realities of the youth participants (e.g., no transportation to meet off campus after-school) or the particular opportunities present in that school (e.g., a convenient meeting time). In other situations, adult researchers may decide the increased amount of involvement possible when being less integrated into the school site (e.g., the ability to explore whatever research topic is of greatest interest to the students), would outweigh the potential accessibility benefits. This is similar to reflections on conducting virtual YPAR during the COVID-19 pandemic, which identified such efforts as both offering youth opportunities for engagement during a difficult time, as well as being potentially inaccessible due to their online format (Argañaraz Gomez et al., 2025; Renick et al., 2024). Informed by this complexity, we suggest YPAR facilitators make decisions about how deeply to embed their project within schools based on careful examination of their specific context and how different approaches may influence areas we identified as influential, such as project structure, roles and responsibilities of team members, and meeting durations and frequency.

Implications

Our findings help expand the currently growing field of literature on YPAR facilitation approaches, attending to common quandaries such as how to meaningfully share power with youth and how to effectively partner with schools. Rather than offering simple answers to these persistent questions, the results from this study highlight the complexity and contextually situated nature of decision-making when facilitating YPAR. In particular, our results identified three particular areas of difference (project structure, roles and responsibilities of team members, and meeting durations and frequency) that were impactful on student experiences in our two rounds of YPAR. This finding affirms the importance of considering not just the outcomes of participatory research, but its processes as well (Glass and Newman, 2015; Malorni et al., 2022), while also extending this to consideration of specific contextual factors, in relation to the settings in and communities with which such projects occur.

In our specific context, we found that goals of access and authenticity can be in conflict with one another. Because of the amount of time youth spend in schools, they present an important access point for action research projects. Key priorities of YPAR are engaging diverse youth and creating change in developmental settings (Ozer, 2017) and conducting such projects within schools is a seemingly effective strategy for meeting these goals. However, the adultism inherent in traditional school structures (Bertrand et al., 2023; Oto, 2023), means integrating such projects within these settings can limit opportunities for the kind of authentic youth-led research on which YPAR is based. Furthermore, increasing accessibility to participate in YPAR does not look the same for all youth, with some practices increasing accessibility for some, but limiting it for others.

Therefore, in returning to the question posed by Brion-Meisels and Alter (2018) of whether it is “possible for educators to use the setting of school as an access point for the type of participatory, praxis-oriented intellectual engagement that YPAR provides? Or does bringing YPAR into school settings risk diluting the very essence of the process that we seek to engage?” our answer to both questions is yes. Schools can be leveraged as access points, but they will often also inhibit the emancipatory goals of YPAR. They can create access, but they will also likely limit the authenticity of youth engagement. This poses a different challenge for YPAR scholars, one about what to prioritize within such imperfect systems. While researchers conducting YPAR have examined facilitation approaches, often focusing on specific practices (Malorni et al., 2022), another element of this line of scholarship requires exploring the decision-making processes utilized when working within flawed structures. Current societal systems of adultism influence not just the lives of youth, but also the realities of adults seeking to disrupt youth-adult hierarchies through research approaches like YPAR, necessitating hard choices of whether to prioritize access or authentic engagement for youth. While some work has engaged with this tension (e.g., Iacono et al., 2024), there is an important extension to be made in work on power-sharing with YPAR, which moves beyond the competencies individual adults need to hold so as not to reify harm, to also consider how broader societal structures can create new possibilities for authentic power-sharing within youth. For a further exploration of power-sharing within our first YPAR project, please see Abad and Renick (2025).

Limitations and directions for future research

This study is not without limitations, both in regard to what we studied and how we studied it. Notably, our rounds of YPAR were conducted in collaboration with one particular school and given the nuanced nature of school settings, findings would likely differ in other school contexts. As such, we recommend continued exploration into different ways to conduct school-based YPAR in a variety of schools, attending to variance in school level, size, location, and structure, as a way to improve access and authenticity. In addition, the first round of YPAR occurred during one of the earlier stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, at a time when many activities for youth were taking place online. Therefore, students in that moment may have been more open to online YPAR, highlighting the need for continued exploration of the affordances and challenges of online YPAR facilitation, when such online activities may be less common. Furthermore, while our study primarily focused on examining the impacts of our practices and structures across YPAR projects, future work could expand this line of inquiry by focusing more on decision-making and prioritization.

Another limitation is related to our research methodology. As we were focusing in this study on our own practices as YPAR facilitators, we opted to employ a qualitative self-study methodology (Hamilton et al., 2008). However, this approach privileges our own individual reflections and does not include the perspectives of our youth co-researchers or our school staff collaborators. This presents a tension when studying YPAR, which centers youth perspectives, and especially when focusing on school-based YPAR, which involves the viewpoints of school staff. Due to youth graduating and school staff shifting sites, it was not feasible to involve them in this study, but future work of this nature should include youth and community collaborator perspectives, as they are key stakeholders within these partnerships and can offer valuable insights.

Conclusion

While YPAR can be a way to advance more equitable approaches to research and elevate youth voice in school settings, there can be a number of challenges to conducting it well. As such, it is important for attention to be paid to the processes and practices utilized in the structure and facilitation of YPAR projects, with specific consideration of power-sharing. When conducting YPAR within the context of schools, additional obstacles may arise, due in part to the aspects of school settings that may be in conflict with YPAR’s goals and societal norms of adultism. In our study, we observed that different strategies in relation to project structure, roles and responsibilities of team members, and meeting durations and frequency all had meaningful impacts on student experience. Considering both school integration and youth involvement as a spectrum, we observed that increased embeddedness of our YPAR projects into the school setting sometimes limited opportunities for deep youth involvement, affirming the complexity inherent to conducting community-engaged research within educational contexts. Overall, we believe that schools can serve as an access point for YPAR, but that various contextual factors in these settings may create additional challenges to achieving YPAR’s emancipatory goal of authentic youth engagement.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

None

ORCID iD

Jennifer Renick

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was supported by funding from the Society for Community Research and Action, specifically the 2021 SCRA Student Research Grant.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author biographies

Jennifer Renick is an Assistant professor of Ecological/Community Psychology at Michigan State University. Her research is focused on the intersection of community, developmental, and educational psychology, with two main areas of focus: the developmental appropriateness of adolescents’ educational environments and higher education institutions’ ability to address societal needs. She is a community-engaged researcher, with prior experience facilitating research-practice partnerships and conducting youth-participatory action research.

Giesi Lopez is a Program Coordinator with the University of California, Irvine’s Early Academic Outreach Program. He completed his Bachelor’s Degree in Political Science, with a minor in Education, at the University of California, Irvine in 2022.

References

Abad

Renick

(2025) On solidarity and methodological innocence in Youth Participatory Action Research. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning 31(1): 165–182.

Argañaraz Gomez

Fabian Perez

Galindo Valera

(2025) PARqueologia migrante: Latinas engaging in virtual Youth Participatory Action Research. Children’s Geographies 23(1): 100–108.

Bang

Vossoughi

(2016) Participatory design research and educational justice: Studying learning and relations within social change making. Cognition and Instruction 34(3): 173–193.

Bertrand

(2014) Reciprocal dialogue between educational decision makers and students of color: Opportunities and obstacles. Educational Administration Quarterly 50(5): 812–843.

Bertrand

Brooks

Domínguez

(2023) Challenging adultism: Centering youth as educational decision makers. Urban Education 58(10).2570–2597.

Bertrand

Durand

Gonzalez

(2017) “We’re trying to take action”: Transformative agency, role re-mediation, and the complexities of Youth Participatory Action Research. Equity and Excellence in Education 50(2): 142–154.

Bettencourt

(2020) Embracing problems, processes, and contact zones: Using youth participatory action research to challenge adultism. Action Research 18(2): 153–170.

Braun

Clarke

(2012) Thematic analysis. In: Cooper

Camic

Long

, et al. (eds) APA Handbook of Research Methods in Psychology, Vol. 2. Research Designs: Quantitative, Qualitative, Neuropsychological, and Biological, pp. 57–71. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Brion-Meisels

Alter

(2018) The quandary of Youth Participatory Action Research in school settings: A framework for reflecting on the factors that influence purpose and process. Harvard Educational Review 88(4): 429–454.

10.

Bullough

Pinnegar

(2001) Guidelines for quality in autobiographical forms of self-study research. Educational Researcher 3(30): 13–21.

11.

Call-Cummings

Ní Sheanáin

Buttimer

(2022) School-based YPAR: Negotiating productive tensions of participation and possibility. Educational Action Research 30(1): 76–91.

12.

Cammarota

Fine

(2008) Youth participatory action research: A pedagogy for transformational resistance. In: Cammarota

Fine

(eds) Revolutionizing Education: Youth Participatory Action Research in Motion, pp. 1–11. London: Routledge.

13.

Coburn

Penuel

(2016) Research–practice partnerships in education: Outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. Educational Researcher 45(1): 48–54.

14.

Flasher

(1978) Adultism. Adolescence 13(51): 517–523.

15.

Freire

(1970) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.

16.

Friedman

York

Mokdad

, et al. (2021) U.S children “learning online” during COVID-19 without the internet or a computer: Visualizing the gradient by race/ ethnicity and parental educational attainment. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World 7: 1–3.

17.

Glass

Newman

(2015) Ethical and epistemic dilemmas in knowledge production: Addressing their intersection in collaborative, community-based research. Theory and Research in Education 13(1): 23–37.

18.

Hamilton

Pinnegar

(2009) Arriving at self study. In: Hamilton

Pinnegar

(eds) Self-study of Practice as a Genre of Qualitative Research, pp. 1–9.Cham: Springer.

19.

Hamilton

Smith

Worthington

(2008) Fitting the methodology with the research: An exploration of narrative, self-study and auto-ethnography. Studying Teacher Education 4(1): 17–28.

20.

Iacono

Elsaesser

Dominique Courts

(2024) “My resistance melts away”: The role of mindfulness in supporting participatory researchers’ efforts to share power with youth co-researchers. American Journal of Community Psychology 74(3–4): 236–248.

21.

Jacquez

Vaughn

Wagner

(2013) Youth as partners, participants or passive recipients: A review of children and adolescents in Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR). American Journal of Community Psychology 51: 176–189.

22.

Keddie

(2021) The difficulties of “action” in Youth Participatory Action Research: Schoolifying YPAR in two elite settings. Discourse 42(3): 381–393.

23.

Kirshner

(2010) Productive tensions in Youth Participatory Action Research. Teachers College Record 13(112): 238–251.

24.

Kornbluh

Neal

Ozer

(2016) Scaling-up youth-led social justice efforts through an online school-based social network. American Journal of Community Psychology 57(3–4): 266–279.

25.

Lac

Antunes

Daniel

, et al. (2021) What is the role of adult facilitators in Critical Participatory Action Research? Employing affective labor while navigating the politics and the perils alongside minoritized youth researchers. Educational Policy 36(1): 142–168.

26.

Malorni

Lea

Richards-Schuster

, et al. (2022) Facilitating youth participatory action research (YPAR): A scoping review of relational practice in U.S. youth development & out-of-school time projects. Children and Youth Services Review 136: 106399.

27.

Marciano

Peralta

Lee

, et al. (2020) Centering community: Enacting culturally responsive-sustaining YPAR during COVID-19. Journal for Multicultural Education 14(2): 163–175.

28.

Neiman

(1986) Education, power, and the authority of knowledge. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education 88(1): 64–80.

29.

Oto

(2023) “This is for us, not them”: Troubling adultism through a pedagogy of solidarity in youth organizing and activism. Theory and Research in Social Education 51(4): 530–558.

30.

Ozer

(2017) Youth-led participatory action research: Overview and potential for enhancing adolescent development. Child Development Perspectives 11(3): 173–177.

31.

Ozer

Newlan

Douglas

, et al. (2013) “Bounded” empowerment: Analyzing tensions in the practice of Youth-Led Participatory Research in urban public schools. American Journal of Community Psychology 52: 13–26.

32.

Renick

Abraczinskas

Nash

, et al. (2024) Adapting YPAR practices to address community changes and challenges: Lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic. Children and Youth Services Review 163: 107805.

33.

Renick

Reich

(2022) The couch as a classroom: Exploring the school environment of low-income Latine adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Multicultural Education 17(2): 237–249.

34.

Renick

Reich

(2023) Elevating student voices and addressing their needs: Using Youth Participatory Action Research to improve school climate during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Adolescent Research 39(6): 1664–1692.

35.

Rivera

Okubo

Harden

, et al. (2022) Conducting virtual Youth-Led Participatory Action Research (YPAR) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Participatory Research Methods 3(3).

36.

Rubin

Abu El-Haj

Graham

, et al. (2016) Confronting the urban civic opportunity gap: Integrating Youth Participatory Action Research into Teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education 67(5): 424–436.

37.

Rubin

Ayala

Zaal

(2017) Authenticity, aims and authority: Navigating youth participatory action research in the classroom. Curriculum Inquiry 47(2): 175–194.

38.

Sayles-Hannon

(2012) On whose authority? Issues of epistemic authority and injustice in the social justice classroom. Philosophy of Education Archive 68: 380–388.

39.

Stoecker

(2009) Are we talking the walk of community-based research?. Action Research, 7(4): 385–404.

40.

Teixeira

Augsberger

Richards-Schuster

, et al. (2021) Participatory research approaches with youth: Ethics, engagement, and meaningful action. American Journal of Community Psychology 68(1–2): 142–153.

41.

Tuck

Yang

(2013) Introduction to Youth Resistance Research and Theories of Change. In: Tuck

Yang

(eds) Youth Resistance Research and Theories of Change, pp. 1–24. New York: Routledge.

42.

Voight

Velez

(2018) Youth Participatory Action Research in the high school curriculum: Education outcomes for student participants in a District-wide initiative. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness 11(3): 433–451.

43.

Wallerstein

Muhammad

Sanchez-Youngman

, et al. (2019) Power dynamics in community—based participatory research: A multiple—case study analysis of partnering contexts, histories, and practices. Health Education and Behavior 46(1): 19–32.

44.

Zeldin

Christens

Powers

(2013) The psychology and practice of youth-adult partnership: Bridging generations for youth development and community change. American Journal of Community Psychology 51(3–4): 385–397.

45.

Zion

Kirshner

Hipolito-Delgado

(2025) What is transformative student voice? In: Zion

Kirshner

Hipolito-Delgado

(eds) Transformative Student Voice: Partnering with Young People for Equitable School Improvement, pp. 1–15. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.