In This Together

Abstract

This article explores what it means to engage youth in meaningful dissemination of research findings. To do so, the authors (a group of academic researchers and youth collaborators, aged 14-18) consider their experience working together on the Spaces & Places research project, a participatory visual methods research program that took place in Eskasoni, a Mi'kmaq community in rural Nova Scotia, Canada. Over the course of the project, we developed a strong sense of relational accountability. Reflecting on our experiences, we believe that this is central to the development of a dissemination process that is meaningful and engaging. To reflect on youth perspectives and experiences of the project's dissemination process, we use a participatory action research technique-the Socratic Wheel-to explore six factors that contribute to a meaningful dissemination process: The degree to which the project is relationship building, strengthening, rewarding, able to reach our intended audience, provides opportunities moving forward, balances structure with flexibility, and allows youth to have a sense of ownership over their work.

Exploring the Impact of Youth-Produced Images on Family, Community, and Policy

“…There is extensive research in the field of participatory visual methods that shows that young people can play a major role in identifying their needs and suggesting practical solutions (Conrad & Kendal, 2009;Gubrium & Harper, 2013;MacDonald et al, 2011aMacDonald et al, , 2011bReich et al, 2017). In their book, Learning From the Ground Up, Choudry and Kapoor (2010) examine many instances of grassroots movements that provided a platform for political activists and social scientists to challenge and to some extent dismantle an NGO's, state's, and governments' act that on the surface seemed to benefit marginalized groups.…”

Engaging Youth in Research

“…Working with youth as co-researchers as opposed to just participants, subjects, objects, or respondents centers the research process on youth knowledge and places importance on their lived experiences and validates youth knowledge (Reich et al 2017). For instance, Flicker (2008) describes how youth engagement in a CBPR project on HIV-positive youth provided opportunities for youth researchers to give voice to the social issues and contexts they experienced.…”

“…Although youth involvement in CER offers benefits to research, communities, and youth, such engagement is not without its challenges (Reich et al 2017). Despite growing recognition of youth voice and participation, barriers to the meaningful involvement of youth in research, such as deficits-based view of youth and institutional-centric processes, lead to tokenism of youth in research (Jacquez et al 2013;Gomez and Ryan 2016;Nichols et al 2013;Ozer et al 2010;Reich et al 2017). In addition to being located within the realm of the academy, research is also traditionally regarded as an activity that is dominated and led by adults.…”

“…Arunkumar et al (2018) discuss how these institutional processes of research may lead to a dynamic where adult researchers simply integrate youth into conventional research processes without consideration for youth. In a similar vein, Reich et al (2017) discuss how projects that lack the infrastructure required to support youth may result in tokenistic and superficial involvement of youth in research. Such conditions may undermine the meaningful involvement of youth.…”

“…Often, research projects that engage youth are short-term and leave limited benefits for youth and their communities (Arunkumar et al 2018). Writing from an Indigenous perspective, Reich et al (2017) emphasize the importance of adult allies providing research training to youth as well as developing long-term, meaningful, and accountable relationships with youth researchers (Reich et al 2017).…”