Hearing a Voice: Results of a Participatory Action Research Study

Abstract

Interest in participatory action research (PAR) is rising among academics, researchers, families, and youth themselves who are involved in the system of care. PAR combines systematic research and professional guidance with the development of a practical intervention tailored to the user population in collaboration with the user population. We designed our research to sample and assess the level of interest in PAR for adolescents, gathering qualitative data about the level of understanding of, and expectations for, youth participatory action research. We present the results of a pilot study and then a survey, administered to two different conference populations during 2008. Our data offers insight into the world of service providers, beneficiaries, and advocates for children with mental health disorders. Based on the responses to our questionnaire, we identify four major themes and their underlying issues concerning the benefits and drawbacks of PAR for a young population. We also examine the concerns of each of the self-identified group to determine whether there were dominant characteristics for each group. We conclude that stakeholders do have reasonable expectations of participatory action research as a process and of the youth who could be empowered to bring about change in their system of care. Finally, we make recommendations for future research.

Participatory Research as One Piece of the Puzzle: A Systematic Review of Consumer Involvement in Design of Technology-Based Youth Mental Health and Well-Being Interventions

“…In working with adolescents with behavioral problems, Mazzone et al [ 55 ] recommend small groups and many short activities with simple tasks and objectives. They also endorse building in praise and a sense of ownership when working with all youth consumers (see also Dold et al [ 73 ]). A structured design process that scaffolds consumers throughout was also found to be effective [ 49 , 52 , 55 , 58 , 61 ].…”

“…Planning for and understanding consumer expectations of participation in research, along with their self-perceptions as mental health consumers, matters [ 73 ]. Given the limited data available regarding consumer experience of research, building reflection and evaluation into research plans should be a focus for future research projects.…”

“…Ideally, projects wishing to collaborate with youth mental health consumers require committed, youth-supportive research leadership and a process that is well-resourced and supported. Previous research suggests that projects that are age and developmentally appropriate and incorporate meaningful, individualized, empowering, and capacity-building elements improve consumer output and buy-in [ 59 , 73 , 76 ], which has obvious implications for improving the current recruitment and participation issues.…”

Examining the Potential Use of the Collaborative-Geomatics Informatics Tool to Foster Intergenerational Transfer of Knowledge in a Remote First Nation Community

“…It was important that the youth participated in these activities for multiple reasons; one of them being that many youth do not have the opportunity to participate in traditional activities on a regular basis or at all due to the cost to the family and/or the lack of knowledge (Tsuji & Nieboer, 1999). Second, it was integral that the community was a key part of the program, because cultural information should ideally be taught by the holders of that knowledge either directly and/or remotely (e.g., video; Dold & Chapman, 2011; Kemmis & McTaggart, 2000; Smith, 2002). Finally, the activities engaged in during the present initiative allowed the youth to see how technology can be used out on the land for various purposes and in a manner that was beneficial to their community and culture (Aikenhead, 1997; Castleden et al, 2008; Ngai & Keohn, 2010; Okada et al, 2002; Riggs, 2004).…”

Co-Researching With Children in the Time of COVID-19: Shifting the Narrative on Methodologies to Generate Knowledge

“…Oliver argues that the exclusive creation of knowledge by scientific research methods can be contested, as this is not the only way to produce knowledge. This position is supported by other scholars who assert that people beyond academia and research institutions are entitled to contribute to knowledge creation through an inclusive approach that has the potential to bring forth largely underrepresented and historically excluded perspectives and audiences to the debate (see also Cahill, 2007;Dold & Chapman, 2012;Hordijk & Baud, 2006).…”