More than Data Collectors: A Systematic Review of the Environmental Outcomes of Youth Inquiry Approaches in the United States

Abstract

Highlights• Environmental outcomes reported in 36 US studies of youth inquiry approaches.• Outcomes included changes to practitioners, policies, programs, research, and peer group norms.• Long term, advocacy-oriented groups targeting decision-makers were more likely to report outcomes.Abstract Over the last twenty years, research on the impact of engaging children and adolescents in the generation of new knowledge about their lives, schools, and communities, has grown tremendously. This systematic review summarizes the findings from empirical studies of youth inquiry approaches in the United States, with a focus on their environmental outcomes. Searches of four interdisciplinary databases retrieved a total of 3,724 relevant articles published between 1995 and 2015. Sixty-three distinct studies met the systematic review inclusion criteria, of which, 36 (57.1%) reported that the youth inquiry approach contributed to positive changes among adults, peers, organizations, and/or institutions. These environmental outcomes were qualitatively recorded, inductively categorized, and then organized into Bronfenbrenner's ecological framework. Youth inquiry approaches led to practitioner growth and changes in peer group norms at the micro-system level, program development or improvement and research benefits at the meso-system level, and school, city, and state level policy adoption at the exo-system level. Qualitative methods, especially case studies, were most commonly used to evaluate the impact of youth inquiry approaches on environmental outcomes. Studies of approaches that utilized advocacy to create change, targeted decisionmakers as the audience for the youth's work and convened for a longer duration were more likely to report improved environmental outcomes. This systematic review suggests that youth inquiry approaches are a promising strategy for ecological systems change.

“Not Only Adults Can Make Good Decisions, We as Children Can Do That as Well” Evaluating the Process of the Youth-Led Participatory Action Research ‘Kids in Action’

“…Because of the positive experience with children's participation, community partners wanted to continue with this after the study. A recent review found that through being involved in YPAR, adults appreciated children's abilities and valued their participation [11]. This is one of the most valued outcomes of this study, as we feel that children should not only participate in decision making during research.…”

“…For example, the 'dog-poo' signs were appealing to children because they were drawn by children and colorful. A recent review also found that engaging youth in inquiry aided the research process, for example because youths can stimulate each other to participate in actions [11]. By developing and implementing actions together with children, 'Kids in Action' tried to work on the level of participation of shared control and decision-making power between children and adults [14,27,28,30].…”

“…On this level children are taken seriously, they work on actions and see their own actions being implemented [18]. When children are involved in advocacy and organizing, this can lead to environmental outcomes such as changes in peer norms and program development [11]. It should be kept in mind that sharing power may not be possible for every decision [31].…”

“…Actions initiated by youth are more aligned with the needs and wishes of their community [9]. YPAR has mostly been applied in school-settings to address problems with education, social inequalities, health, or the physical and social environment [10,11].…”

Tell it to Me Straight: The Benefits (and Struggles) of a Consumer‐driven Assessment Process

“…Community-based participatory research has also been used to understand consumer health service use, address challenges in consumer access to services, and improve the quality of social services (Case et al, 2014;Kaufman, Schreier, Graham, Marshall, & Bracey;Israel, Schultz, Parker, & Becker, 2001;Kennedy, DeChants, Bender, & Anyon, 2019;Ochocka, Jazen, & Nelson, 2002;Pullmann, 2009;Shultz et al, 2003;Trivedi & Wykes, 2002). In particular, CBPR is increasingly seen as a necessary approach to understanding the needs and challenges of mental health consumers and their family members within systems of care (Crawford et al, 2002;Kidd, Davidson, Frederick, & Kral, 2018;Pullmann, 2009;Trivedi & Wykes, 2002) including systems of care for youth which provide coordinated community-based services, informal community resources, and supports for young people experiencing mental health challenges as well as their families (Cook & Kilmer, 2012;Stroul & Friedman, 1986).…”