An interdisciplinary framework of youth participatory action research informed by curricula, youth, adults, and researchers

Abstract

Rarely are youth voices incorporated into program and policy development. Youth participatory action research (YPAR) is an opportunity for adolescents to develop research skills by completing projects relevant to their lives and allows participation and decision‐making at systems and organizational levels. Attention to YPAR implementation detail, especially a curricular focus, is lacking in the literature. Specifically absent is an all‐encompassing YPAR framework, a gap the current study addresses. The current study includes a review of existing YPAR curricula to develop the Youth Researcher Empowerment Framework, including research components, social emotional competencies, and assumptions necessary for completing a YPAR project that centers youth voice and shared power. The study includes a quantitative assessment of the YPAR curricula and qualitative reviews by adult practitioners. In addition, focus group data from youth and teacher audiences across multiple settings confirmed and clarified terms and concepts related to the framework. The study provides empirical evidence to support a revised framework for YPAR curricular implementation. Implications are discussed in terms of aspects of the research process needed for YPAR projects, attention to specific youth developmental skills as outcomes, and underlying principles needed to create a welcoming, contextual space allowing for empowerment, youth voice, and choice.

INTRODUCTION

Rarely are adolescent voices incorporated into program and policy development, yet policies in schools, communities, and cities directly or indirectly impact adolescents. Youth participatory action research (YPAR) is the practice of collaborating with youth as partners to conduct research and translate research results for community action change (Anyon et al., 2018; Malorni et al., 2022). YPAR is an opportunity for adolescents to learn and develop skills by completing the research process with a project that is relevant to their lives, school, or community. YPAR empowers youth by acknowledging their own expertise and priorities (Wong et al., 2010). After collecting and analyzing data, youth communicate recommendations for action changes to existing policies to their schools and communities. For instance, YPAR projects have helped youth draw attention to the invisibility of interventionists in their schools who are supposed to offer support to students (Marciano & Warren, 2019); the differences between resources at public schools (Mirra et al., 2016); and the need for attention to the issue of school bullying (Bertrand et al., 2017).

Participatory approaches, in general, transcend traditional disciplinary research by creating projects that are “with” not “for” participants (Kindon et al., 2007). YPAR, specifically, follows the participatory research direction, building youth capacity to conduct research on their own, with the support of adult researchers. Young people are the experts on their own lived experiences and determining feasible and acceptable solutions to their identified problems.

YPAR is just one of many participatory approaches to research. Other participatory approaches are also effective in working with youth audiences, such as arts‐based participatory processes (i.e., Ballard et al., 2023; Philippakos et al., 2021; Tumanyan & Huuki, 2020) and design‐based processes (Kia‐Keating et al., 2017; Magee et al., 2024). YPAR goes beyond involving youth in research to allowing youth to lead the research direction from picking the topic and developing the research question to implementing the research and analyzing the data, reporting their results to those in positions to make programmatic and policy changes from the findings. The focus of this work is on the subfield of YPAR within the greater field of participatory research.

YPAR works in the space between traditional research and practice programs and goes beyond disciplinary boundaries. The approach pulls from public health (Branquinho et al., 2020), developmental science (Ballonoff Suleiman et al., 2021), community psychology (Anderson, 2020), positive youth development (Shamrova & Cummings, 2017), and prevention science (Woods‐Jaeger et al., 2022). Thus, by its nature, the YPAR approach has the potential to be advanced through interdisciplinary research that brings together diverse frameworks for the YPAR approach. Society for Research on Adolescence states:

As defined by the SRA Interdisciplinary Committee, interdisciplinary research integrates two or more disciplines in its theoretical, conceptual, methodological, and/or analytical approach to solve questions and/or problems in ways that transcend what is possible from a single discipline. Interdisciplinary research can be conducted by an individual or a team. (Society for Research on Adolescence, n.d.)

We argue there is another discipline by nature that can be integrated in YPAR work: the discipline of young people's lives.

Looking through an ecological lens of youth participation (Gal, 2017), YPAR, if scaffolded properly, allows youth participation and decision‐making at systems and organizational levels. From a researcher's perspective, YPAR processes draw upon the expertise of youth, creating opportunities and projects that are equitable, inclusive, and lead to impact and action change (Ozer, 2017). From a practitioner's perspective, publicly available step‐by‐step guides may be one resource they can adapt to their local context to scaffold participation. With YPAR, research serves two functions. First, research becomes a tool for youth to investigate issues impactful on their lives and communities. Through YPAR projects youth have addressed issues including social justice (Morales et al., 2017), educational disparities (Davis, 2021), health disparities (Branquinho et al., 2020), and drug use prevention (Gosin et al., 2003). Participating in YPAR can strengthen youth connectedness and community belonging (Shamrova & Cummings, 2017). On a community level, not only can YPAR lead to beneficial policy changes, but the experience can also change adult perceptions of the contributions youth bring to the table (Bertrand, 2019; Bettencourt, 2020; Kennedy, 2018).

Second, YPAR processes are an intervention that can influence youth participants' developmental outcomes. For instance, YPAR participation has shown increases in critical thinking, responsibility, self‐confidence, and other social emotional competencies (Ballonoff Suleiman et al., 2021; Morales et al., 2017; Ozer, 2017; Shamrova & Cummings, 2017). Youth learn to acknowledge different narratives explaining the same phenomenon and understand the role of bias (Kirshner et al., 2011). For YPAR to be most effective, the work must support both research and youth development goals and outcomes.

YPAR approaches have been found particularly powerful for historically marginalized youth (Iwasaki et al., 2014). Working through the YPAR process can create spaces for youth to discuss and make meaning from their lived experiences (Davis, 2021). Goessling (2020) uses the term “youthspaces” to define the connection of YPAR work with safe places and opportunities to explore trauma experiences in creative or artistic ways. Pujols (2022) describes the YPAR‐related opportunities to explore identity as “third space.”

YPAR can change both participants' views of their world and views of the role of power and privilege in their lives, and YPAR is often linked to social justice frameworks, practices, and outcomes (Davis, 2020; Keddie, 2021; Marciano & Warren, 2019; Pujols, 2022). Cammarota (2017) explains YPAR as leading to transformational resistance. Various research addresses the connection between YPAR participation and increases to critical consciousness among youth participants (Cammarota, 2017; Diemer et al., 2021; Foster‐Fishman et al., 2010; Kornbluh et al., 2015) and critical awareness (Morales et al., 2017).

YPAR curriculum

The need for instructional design is assumed in content development for formal education: theories and models to guide the development of lesson plans, learning objectives, assessments, and outcomes (Reigeluth, 2009). In nonformal education, the processes are similar, but the nomenclature changes to activity plans, program objectives, and evaluation outputs and outcomes (Caffarella & Daffron, 2013). However, when describing the complex processes of YPAR implementation, the attention to implementation detail is lacking in the literature.

Previous YPAR review articles have focused on YPAR in specific contexts, including school‐based YPAR (Anderson, 2020) and out‐of‐school time projects (Malorni et al., 2022), as well as related to specific issues such as health‐related work (Branquinho et al., 2020). Others have looked specifically at the role of youth in projects (Shamrova & Cummings, 2017) or youth‐related outcomes (Anyon et al., 2018). A distinct absence of focus on the curriculum used to facilitate YPAR projects is common in all cited YPAR review attempts.

In YPAR projects set within the school day, authors discuss building the YPAR process into existing curriculum (Anderson, 2020; Kornbluh et al., 2015; Morales et al., 2017). In one instance, a new high school course curriculum was developed using YPAR to enhance the underlying course standards (Rubin et al., 2017). YPAR procedures have also been used to enhance prevention‐focused curriculum (Gosin et al., 2003), enhance STEM programs (Jacquez et al., 2020), and support programming for youth living with HIV (Flicker, 2008). However, YPAR is described as a process or a framework, and the literature does not reference a specific curriculum to follow. The only noted exception are references to the Youth Engaged in Leadership and Learning (YELL) YPAR curriculum (Kennedy, 2018; Rubin et al., 2017).

While curriculum is not specifically cited, existing frameworks for YPAR are also limited in both quantity and scope. Branquinho et al. (2020) developed a framework for the research stages involved in YPAR. Rubin et al. (2017) developed principles for including YPAR in school curriculum, including providing a student‐centered space, collaboration between teachers and students, opportunities to question real life and learn research skills while meeting state learning standards. Foster‐Fishman et al. (2010) use a specific method for teaching the data analysis portion of YPAR but do not include other methods for engaging youth in the YPAR process. Marciano and Warren (2019) discuss a week‐long research institute to teach YPAR, including what was taught, not how it was taught. The literature lacks an all‐encompassing framework, which includes (1) the various aspects of the research process needed for YPAR project development, (2) attention to the specific developmental skills for youth that should be outcomes of YPAR work, and (3) the underlying principles needed to create a contextual space allowing for empowerment, youth voice, and choice.

Objectives

The objectives of the current study were to:

1. Compile the available YPAR curricula, searching across disciplines to create a comprehensive list;

2. Develop a comprehensive framework for use of curricula to facilitate YPAR;

3. Collaborate with youth and adult practitioners to refine the framework using the words, phrases, and ideas that resonate with the intended audience; and.

4. Analyze the lessons, strategies, and skills utilized in the various YPAR curricula in partnership with adult practitioners.

The current study is part of a larger collaboration that brings together researchers who come from different theoretical traditions such as public health, human development and family studies, positive youth development, agricultural education, community and economic development, cooperative extension, formal and informal schooling, and volunteer management. To date, this team has successfully secured three pilot grants as well as presented the results of one YPAR project at a conference (Eaton et al., 2024) and submitted another presentation for an upcoming conference (Dariotis et al., 2024).

METHODS

This study utilizes an exploratory sequential mixed methods design (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018) in two phases with a heavy emphasis on qualitative data (three parts qualitative; one part quantitative). First, curricula were qualitatively reviewed to document the content covered by each. Patterns of coverage and gaps across the curricula informed a draft and refinement of a conceptual framework. Then, focus group data were collected to capture multiple perspectives on the framework. Last, quantitative ratings of curricula were descriptively analyzed to understand the extent to which each covered the research components and social emotional competencies of the refined conceptual framework. No a priori hypotheses were posed or warranted inferential testing.

Our study methods are divided into four parts to match the study objectives. The first part is the curricula review to create a list of publicly available YPAR curricula. The second part is the development of a comprehensive framework for the use of YPAR curricula. The third part includes a participatory review of the framework using data from youth, teachers, and after‐school program staff to confirm and clarify that the terms, concepts, and phrases related to research and used in the framework resonate with the audiences that will ultimately use the materials. The fourth part includes a review and rating of each YPAR curriculum using the revised framework.

Part 1: YPAR curricula comprehensive review and identification

A total of 15 curricula or programs were identified by our review. The curricula were identified by (1) searching for youth participatory action research using Google and ChatGPT as search engines, (2) using the resource page from a popular YPAR curriculum website (Berkeley YPAR Hub, https://yparhub.berkley.edu), and (3) receiving input from two researchers who have previous experience with conducting YPAR. We used the search term: “Youth Participatory Action Research” and recorded all mentions of educational programming related to YPAR. The search was led by one member of the research team, and during weekly meetings, the results were discussed and checked by the four additional researchers to assess selection processes and attempt to minimize bias. The search process lasted from March 29, 2023, to May 2, 2023. One additional curriculum was identified from an article used to support the literature review.

Our curricula identification only includes open‐access, publicly available curricula. The United States Department of Education advocates for the use of openly licensed educational materials for all students (United States Department of Education, 2017) and as part of plans to assist in closing the digital divide (United States Department of Education, 2024).

Curricula were assessed for nine characteristics: population (whom it was defined for; age or grade; youth/teachers/other); group or individual focused activities; number of cycles/units/ sessions; duration of sessions; program components, activities, and topics covered; availability of materials; goals; whether it was a structured curriculum with lesson plans, objectives, outlined activities; notable gaps (what is missing); and recommend adapting (yes/no). A list of these characteristics is available in Appendix A: Data S1.

Part 2: Initial youth researcher empowerment YPAR framework outline

The study team met to develop an initial YPAR framework based on members' collective expertise and knowledge of positive youth development principles, youth participatory action research and community‐based participatory research, the scientific method and research process, and team science. This initial framework served as a springboard for evaluating components of existing YPAR curricula to ultimately refine the framework and identify gap areas for future YPAR scholarship.

From the initial framework (Figure 1), we created a comprehensive framework for YPAR facilitation, the Youth Researcher Empowerment YPAR Framework. This framework includes [1] eight research process components for YPAR facilitation, [2] eleven social emotional competencies youth may develop through YPAR projects, and [3] ten assumptions necessary to be met before beginning a YPAR project.

FIGURE 1.

Youth Researcher Empowerment YPAR Framework.

Program research components parallel the research inquiry process, including various research stages from preparation for research question design, to data collection techniques to data analysis to connecting research to policy and reporting to decision‐makers. The research steps from the existing YPAR curricula research components and existing YPAR research component framework (Branquinho et al., 2020) were synthesized and correlated with the scientific and engineering practices included in Dimension 1 of the Next Generation Science Standards for teaching science (National Research Council, 2012). The definitions for each component were compiled from the curricula. The research components all represent specific steps that can be accomplished and easily measured. Research components of the framework are found in Table 1.

TABLE 1.

Youth Researcher Empowerment YPAR framework research components.

Research components
Concept	Definition
Choose a topic	Youth choose a research topic that they are interested in based on issues they perceive in their community
Find information on topic	Youth use different tools to find information on their research topic, including historical data, conversations with local experts, literature reviews, and artifacts
Develop research questions	Youth learn how to define and narrow a research question to meet their goals
Select research design	Youth develop a plan for the research design, including their sampling strategy, research tools, and timeline for implementation
Select method	Youth learn different kinds of research tools, including surveys, observations, interviews, focus groups, photovoice, and the pros and cons of each tool
Data collection	Youth brainstorm and finalize their plan for data collection based on the research methods they have selected and start collecting data
Data analysis	Youth learn about different types of analysis (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods) and generate findings from the data they collect
Dissemination	Youth learn about effective presentation and practice communicating the results of their study. Youth take action and share their results with partners

Program research components align with social emotional competencies needed to successfully carry out team projects like YPAR. Using social emotional competencies aligns with existing research on the developmental outcomes of youth empowerment programs (Morton & Montgomery, 2013). The components are referred to as social emotional competencies instead of social emotional learning competencies, following the example used by other frameworks and assessments (Crowder et al., 2019; Darling‐Hammond et al., 2020), as they are concepts to be practiced and not just learned or part of learning. The competencies include such concepts as emotional intelligence, appreciation for the process, cultural relevance, transference, critical persuasion/motivation, forward‐thinking, and coaching.

We developed a list of the social emotional competencies mentioned in the curricula that should be outcomes developed through the process of YPAR, referencing the social emotional learning framework of the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) (CASEL, 2020) and the ten Illinois Social Emotional Learning Standards and performance descriptors for elementary and secondary education (Illinois State Board of Education, n.d.). The competencies and their definitions are included in Table 2.

TABLE 2.

Youth Researcher Empowerment YPAR framework social emotional competency components.

Social emotional competencies
Concept	Original definition
Emotional intelligence (Goleman, 2001; Goleman & Boyatzis, 2017; Salovey & Mayer, 1990)	Awareness of one's emotions and other's emotions, managing emotions, perspective‐taking, and empathy
Appreciation for process/Empowerment (Maton, 2008; White & Wyn, 1998)	Empowering youth to recognize their agency for change in the social context, understand processes for change, and work toward implementing change
Cultural relevance (Brown‐Jeffy & Cooper, 2011)	Teaching youth to be nonjudgmental and inclusive of diverse identities, backgrounds, and perspectives
Transference (Merriam‐Webster, n.d.)	Teaching youth to apply their knowledge and skills gained from a particular project to future projects
Critical thinking (Facione, 1990; Willingham, 2007)	Teaching youth to consider factual evidence in support of their ideas. Additionally, youth are taught to think wholistically and to see both sides of an issue, including considering evidence that may disprove their hypotheses or conclusions
Data consumer (Carlson et al., 2011; Vahey et al., 2006)	Teaching youth to use data to solve real‐world problems and communicate their solutions. Data literacy includes formulating and answering questions using data, using appropriate data to support both thinking and decisions, evaluating explanations that come from data for their legitimacy
Questioning status quo and taking action (White & Wyn, 1998)	Instilling in youth the willingness to question the existing social order and take action to make changes to address existing inequitable or inefficient conditions
Persistence (Pelletier et al., 2002)	Encouraging youth to not give up or drop out, continuing toward their goals even when faced with setbacks and challenges
Persuasion/Motivation (Cialdini, 2001, 2004)	Teaching youth about messaging intended to change, reinforce, or shape another person's response
Forward thinking (Thames & Webster, 2009)	Encouraging youth to adopt a mindset where they continue to scan the environment outside the organizations they work with and the infrastructure within to implement change as a part of routine business
Bringing the best out in others/Coaching (Lepre‐Nolan & Houde, 2023)	Teaching youth skills required for one individual to train or instruct another toward an outcome, usually improves skill or performance

Note: Data literacy was originally termed Data consumer and adapted from feedback from youth focus groups unclear of the term. Persistence was originally presented/labeled as Grit/Resilience and subsequently adapted, addressing concerns that historically marginalized youth are always adapting through a lens of grit and resilience in their daily lives and added to a framework does not acknowledge their lived experience.

Framework assumptions necessary to be met before beginning a YPAR project align with YPAR and Community‐Based Participatory Research (CBPR) principles of shared power, dissemination to all, including moving to action, centering community or youth voice, and building capacity of community and youth partners to lead and sustain project implementation and social justice common in the literature (Ozer, 2017; Rodríguez & Brown, 2009; Rubin et al., 2017). The assumptions are also based on the Science of Learning and Development framework (Cantor et al., 2019; Darling‐Hammond et al., 2020), outlining the environment, instructional strategies, supports, and social emotional development important for child development. The assumptions are designed to build an environment for youth to engage and learn with scaffolding from adults, including the state of mind or the underlying principles adults working with youth as partners in YPAR must consider and prepare prior to beginning a YPAR project. Table 3 lists the assumptions found important for YPAR implementation.

TABLE 3.

Youth Researcher Empowerment YPAR framework assumptions.

Assumptions
Concept	Definition
Community is relevant to youth's physical and social contexts	The understanding that the community, in both its physical and social dimensions, holds intrinsic importance and significance
Adults need training and a mindset of shared power to have success working with youth as partners	Recognizing that adults require training and a mindset shift to engage with youth as equal partners effectively. This assumption acknowledges that a fundamental change in power dynamics is necessary for successful collaboration and meaningful contributions from both adults and youth
Appreciation for community change and civic engagement	The belief in the value of initiatives that promote active participation in civic processes and positive community transformation. This assumption emphasizes the importance of YPAR in developing engaged citizens and acting as a catalyst for meaningful community change
Adults must explore their own positionality before and during YPAR	A reflective and transparent declaration of one's own social, cultural, and personal perspectives and their potential impact on the research process and outcomes. This assumption highlights the need to acknowledge and address biases and subjectivities
Program sustainability through cultural and infrastructure changes will support YPAR principles and efforts after the end of the program	Focusing on the cultural and infrastructural shifts required to ensure that YPAR principles and efforts persist and thrive even after the formal program has concluded. This assumption focuses on long‐term impacts of the program
YPAR leads to a mindset shift of participants by the end of the program	Anticipating that individuals involved in the YPAR program will undergo a transformative change in their perspectives, attitudes, and approaches by the program's conclusion. This assumption underscores the potential for personal growth and expanded participant capacities
YPAR is an iterative process designed to be repeated and not only led once	Acknowledging that the YPAR process is not a one‐time endeavor but a cyclical and ongoing series of steps that can be repeated to address new issues or deepen understanding of existing ones. This assumption calls attention to the continuous nature of YPAR
YPAR is built on both youth and adults using train‐the‐trainer processes to bring in new members to their teams	A strategy aimed at building the capacity of individuals, whether youth or adults, to serve as educators and facilitators. This assumption emphasizes the importance of creating a sustainable and self‐propagating model for implementing YPAR
YPAR is student‐led with adult support through recognizing the power and privilege in communities and bridging gaps in the systems that adults can access but youth cannot	All partnerships between youth and adults start with a power imbalance. Adults hold more power in society than youth. Not only must youth and adult partnerships work through their own balance of power, but in YPAR, they must acknowledge how power and privilege impact the societal issues through which youth are attempting to implement change
During YPAR, youth must commit to developing as a team and continue to build their shared skills and connections through the YPAR process	To successfully work through issues impacting communities, youth must first act as a community. Shared ideas and collaboration are important for both the development of a successful team and the creation of unique and actionable ways to address community issues

Part three: Inclusion of youth and adult voices in framework definitions

While the social‐emotional competencies were originally developed and defined by the adult researchers, to create a list that includes youth voices, we collected qualitative data through seven youth focus groups representing both formal and nonformal education. Details on the focus group process and the demographics of the participants are included in Appendix B: Data S1.

Part four: YPAR curricula ratings and review

YPAR curricula ratings

In the next step of our curricula review, we completed ratings of the ten curricula against the components of the Youth Researcher Empowerment Framework to determine to what extent each included or addressed each research process component for YPAR facilitation, social emotional learning competency developed through YPAR, and assumptions necessary to be met before beginning YPAR. A total of four researchers evaluated the ten curricula. First, four curricula were chosen to be evaluated by all four to assess inter‐rater agreement and to calibrate the coder ratings using the rating scale. The four curricula were chosen because they were the most comprehensive, meaning they addressed the largest number of research processes, social emotional competencies, and assumptions. Coders used the following scale to rate how well each curriculum addressed each concept:

0 = The curriculum does not mention anything about the component.

1 = The curriculum mentions the component but does not have any activity or session dedicated to teaching the component.

2 = The curriculum has a substantial activity/session that teaches the component.

3 = The component has extensive activities and session(s) dedicated to the component.

Coders were allowed to use half points (e.g., 0.5, 1.5, and 2.5). Second, once inter‐rater agreement was established, there was not enough differentiation between coders to justify multiple coding of the remaining six curricula. Therefore, the remaining six curricula were each coded by one researcher.

Adult practitioner YPAR curricula review

While the curriculum might include all the important components, if adult practitioners do not find the format usable and the content appropriate, they may choose not to use the material. To incorporate adult feedback on the implementation process of YPAR curricula, we provided adult practitioner reviewers with a qualitative questionnaire to get their perspectives on [1] format, [2] content, [3] appropriateness, [4] current instruction relevance, and [5] supports needed for teaching the curriculum. The questionnaire consisted of 11 prompts, each with a place for an open‐ended response.

A total of four adult practitioners, including both formal and nonformal educators, provided their feedback across the curricula. The adults included two youth development specialists who lead programming in out‐of‐school time spaces, both identifying as White females, and two public school teachers who have implemented projects similar to YPAR in the past, one identifying as an African American female and one as a White female.

Data were compiled and compared to the curricula ratings to provide a contextual view of the curricula outside of the ratings. The adult practitioners reviewed the nine highest‐rated curricula (excluding NYC Department of Youth and Community Development, 2022).

RESULTS

Part 1: YPAR curricula comprehensive identification

A total of 15 curricula were identified through the search process. We chose to include only curricula that were available to the public in an open‐access format with no cost or training requirements for use. Four of the 15 curricula were not fully available to the general public (Northwestern; University of Minnesota YoUthROC Program; University of California – Los Angeles Youth Research Academy; MiSTEM Network), and one was deemed more of a framework than a research‐based curriculum (Engaging Youth for Positive Change). Ten curricula remained and are listed below in Table 4 with the most recent access information.

TABLE 4.

List of YPAR curricula included in review.

Curriculum name	URL	Year
Berkeley YPAR Basics	https://yparhub.berkeley.edu/home	2021
Transformative Student Voice	https://www.transformativestudentvoice.net/	2021
Stepping Stones	https://ypar.cfcl.ucdavis.edu/OurApproach.html	2020
Youth Engaged in Leadership and Learning (YELL)	https://gardnercenter.stanford.edu/publications/college‐career‐and‐civic‐readiness/youth‐engaged‐leadership‐and‐learning‐yell‐handbook	2007
Harvard Democratic Knowledge Project (DKP)	https://sites.google.com/g.harvard.edu/dkp‐civic‐action‐workbook/home	2021
NYC Department of Youth and Community Development	https://www.nyc.gov/assets/dycd/digital_toolkit/SYEP_PBL_Home.html	2022
Y PLAN (Plan, Learn, Act Now) Digital Toolkit	https://y‐plan.berkeley.edu/toolkit/	2022
Oregon Health Authority YPAR	https://www.oregon.gov/oha/ph/healthypeoplefamilies/youth/pages/youth.aspx	2014
Youth Rep Step by Step	https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED480968	2002
YPAR Elementary	https://www.colorado.edu/education‐research‐hub	2002

Note: The YPAR Elementary (UC Boulder) curriculum was available and downloaded at the time of review, but at the time of publication, the website was revised, and the curriculum was no longer publicly available. The website authors were contacted but did not answer why it was no longer available.

Part 2 and 3: Framework

Youth social‐emotional competency definitions

We compiled and compared the definitions provided by youth focus groups to the original definitions for social‐emotional competencies included in the Framework (Table 2). Youth definitions converged with the major concepts of the original definitions but had more humanistic elements, whereas the original definitions were skewed toward more research process elements (e.g., answering questions, hypotheses; Table 5).

TABLE 5.

Youth and adult social emotional competency definitions with example quotes and comparisons.

Competencies	Youth and adult definitions	Comparison with original definitions	Original
Appreciation for process/Empowerment	Feeling powerful, proud, and liberated. Helping to uplift people. “Ability to change important ideas” and complete necessary steps. “Bringing people up and making sure that they feel powerful and good about themselves.” “Feeling powerful based on something you did. Teaching people to be proud of themself.”	Both had the underlying concepts of agency/ efficacy for being change agents.	Empowering youth to recognize their agency for change in the social context, understand processes for change, and work toward implementing change.
Cultural relevance	Focus on including people's feelings and cultural backgrounds and updating programs, learning objectives to the current culture, and being aware of traditions. Can be applied online, in schools, public places. “Concerning+related to people's culture, background and what makes them, them.” “Something being up to date and appropriate to current culture.” “Help everyone to feel included.”	Both focus on inclusivity. Youth mention adapting programs to cultures and traditions.	Teaching youth to be nonjudgmental and inclusive of diverse identities, backgrounds, and perspectives.
Transference of knowledge to future programs	Utilizing knowledge (from learning, traditions, mistakes) to ask new questions, generate answers, help others, develop programs, teach others. Applying knowledge elsewhere. “Learning from mistakes carrying on traditions.” “Use the info learned to ask new questions, to develop programs designed to help youth, to send funding where it needs to go.” “New ideas help make the world better.”	Both mention using knowledge to move beyond current state (e.g., questions, programs, contexts).	Teaching youth to apply their knowledge and skills gained from a particular project to future projects.
Critical thinking	Deep, analytical thinking coupled with compiling existing knowledge, methods, and possible solutions for problem solving and going outside the box to find new possibilities. “Using your brain to think about something deeply‐i.e. Problem solving not surface level thinking.” “Considering all solutions and finding the best fit.”	Both focus on using information, but youth discuss problem solving, and the original definition focuses on research process (hypothesis testing).	Teaching youth to consider factual evidence in support of their ideas. Additionally, youth are taught to think holistically and to see both sides of an issue, including considering evidence that may disprove their hypotheses or conclusions.
Data literacy	Wants, collects, and uses data, including social media, other online sources, programs, and materials, and applies that information to lives and change. “Collecting data. analyzing it. Learn from it and apply it to yours or other's lives.”	Both focus on data use to solve problems or make improvements.	Teaching youth to use data to solve real‐world problems and communicate their solutions. Data literacy includes the formulating and answering questions using data, using appropriate data to support both thinking and decisions, evaluating explanations that come from data for their legitimacy.
Questioning status quo and taking action	Moving beyond what is “normal” or standard to be unique, different, questioning, curious, critical, and changing old ways with new strategies. “Not following societal trends and exploring beyond what's considered ‘normal’.”	Youth focus on the act of going beyond the standard, and the original definition focused on developing youth willingness to affect change.	Instilling in youth the willingness to question the existing social order and take action to make changes to address existing inequitable or inefficient conditions.
Persistence	Continuing despite difficulties or difficult times. Staying firm in beliefs. It can be seen in many venues and throughout life. Identify programming that helps build this skill. “Staying strong and keeping going no matter what.”	Both focus on staying on the course regardless of challenges.	Encouraging youth to not give up or drop out, continuing toward their goals, even when faced with setbacks and challenges.
Forward thinking	Thoughts focused on improvement (of self, the world) and preparing for the future. Positive, progressive, logical, and innovative (thinking outside the box) thoughts. Utilized in decisions and planning. “Direct, Improve/better a situation, Straight forward thoughts that programs make people think.” “Being prepared for the future.”	Both focus on making change with youth mention the types of thoughts (e.g., positive, progressive), and the original definition focused on context (environment, organization).	Encouraging youth to adopt a mindset where they continue to scan the environment outside the organizations they work with, and the infrastructure within, in order to implement change as a part of routine business.
Bringing the best out in others/Coaching	Helping with people's needs and goals to promote growth and skill building. Co‐learning, sharing knowledge, and impacting others through relationships and programs (e.g., help youth become community leaders). Recognizing the good in others and uplifting or inspiring them. Occurs in group settings, sports, and friendships. “Acknowledging and appreciating the good in others.” “Helping people with what they need help with, and helping with something that they want to achieve.”	Both focus on helping others achieve through the process of teaching and learning. Youth/ adults mention relationships and uplifting others.	Teaching youth skills required for one individual to train or instruct another toward an outcome, usually improves skill or performance.
Persuasion/Motivation	Inspired (adult‐only response)	Insufficient data to make a comparison.	Teaching youth about messaging intended to change, reinforce, or shape another person's response.

Note: Emotional intelligence was added after the adult and youth input.

Of the terms presented, a few youth had initial difficulty with the status quo because of a lack of familiarity with the phrase. When it was explained, they recognized the concept and could respond. Some youth could not explain the concept in a short phrase that was clearer and felt it was best to use the phrase status quo and explain the definition if needed. Other youth explained it as “Questioning the normal and possibly changing it,” “Not following societal trends and exploring beyond what's considered ‘normal’,” and “Trying new strategies and changing the old ways/methods.” Common to their definitions were ideas about changing normative ways to new or innovative ways of being.

Through this process, two concepts were reworded in name. The concept of data consumer was revised to data literacy as many youth did not connect the word “consumer” with using and accessing information. In their words, youth described data literacy as “collecting data. analyzing it. Learn from it and apply it to yours or other's lives.” We also revised the term ‘grit/resilience’ to ‘persistence’ to acknowledge that the term grit may disregard the inherent struggles that historically marginalized youth face in a society where they are already at a disadvantage (Love, 2019). Further, youth used “persistent” in their description of the concept. Youth defined it as “Staying strong and keeping going no matter what,” “Getting back up when something knocks you down. Pushing through difficult times,” and “Being persistent and firm in your beliefs.” Youth ran out of time to respond to the “persuasion/ motivation.”

Part four: YPAR curricula ratings and review

Ten curricula were rated on the 0–4‐point scale (described above) for the eight research process steps, ten social emotional competencies, and ten assumptions. Average scores and standard deviations across the qualities are reported in Table 1. Two programs—Berkeley YPAR Basics and UC Davis Stepping Stones—had an average score of 2 or higher, meaning the curriculum had a substantial activity or session that taught the component. These two curricula were followed closely by Youth Engaged in Leadership and Learning (YELL) and Transformative Student Voice, each with mean scores of 1.7 each. All but one curriculum had an overall rating of 1 or higher, meaning it mentions the component but does not have any activity or session dedicated to teaching the component. Mean ratings for each of the curricula in the three categories of research components, social emotional competencies, and assumptions are included in Table 6 below.

TABLE 6.

List of curricula mean ratings.

Curriculum name	Overall rating		Research		Social emotional		Assumptions
	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD
Stepping Stones	2.09	0.97	3.00	0.00	1.41	0.89	2.10	0.88
Berkeley YPAR Basics	2.00	0.97	2.69	0.70	1.59	0.83	1.90	1.07
Transformative Student Voice	1.67	1.10	2.75	0.46	1.36	1.03	1.15	1.00
Youth Engaged in Leadership and Learning (YELL)	1.72	1.03	2.50	0.76	1.00	0.89	1.90	0.88
Oregon Health Authority YPAR	1.43	1.18	2.63	0.74	0.73	1.01	1.25	0.92
Youth Rep Step by Step	1.24	0.99	1.75	1.04	0.91	0.70	1.20	1.14
Harvard Democratic Knowledge Project (DKP)	1.10	1.18	1.00	1.07	1.45	1.21	0.80	1.23
YPAR Elementary	1.10	1.07	2.25	0.71	0.64	0.81	0.70	0.92
Y Plan (Plan, Learn, Act Now) Digital Toolkit	1.00	1.07	1.38	1.30	1.00	0.89	0.70	1.06
NYC Department of Youth and Community Development	0.60	0.79	0.38	0.52	0.64	0.67	0.75	1.09

Research components

The eight research components are listed in Table 7, along with means, standard deviations, and ranges for ratings across the ten curricula. Five of the eight research components averaged 2 or higher, meaning most of the curricula have a substantial activity or session devoted to that component. On average, these curricula address research components relatively well with only one or two curricula scoring a zero on any given research component. Data dissemination and analysis components were covered the most, and developing research questions was covered the least. Given how crucial research questions are to subsequent steps of the research process, this may be an area for improving curricula activities (as discussed below).

TABLE 7.

Research component ratings across curricula.

Research components	M	SD	Range
Dissemination	2.40	1.26	0–3
Data analysis	2.30	1.25	0–3
Data collection	2.20	1.14	0–3
Select research design	2.05	0.96	0–3
Select method	2.00	1.25	0–3
Choose a topic	1.90	0.88	1–3
Find information on topic	1.80	1.03	0–3
Develop research questions	1.60	1.35	0–3

Note: Rating description: 0 = The curriculum does not mention anything about the component. 1 = The curriculum mentions it but does not have any activity or session dedicated to teaching the component. 2 = The curriculum has a substantial activity/session that teaches the component. 3 = The curriculum has extensive activities and session(s) dedicated to the component.

Social emotional competencies

Social‐emotional competencies were assessed in two ways. First, curricula coverage of social emotional competencies were rated by researchers. Second, a subset of youth (Site A) and adults (Site B) provided their definitions of each competency.

Curricula social‐emotional competency ratings

The extent to which the ten curricula addressed the eleven social‐emotional competencies was calculated using the rating scale, and the findings are presented in Table 8. Appreciation for Process/ Empowerment was most consistently addressed by curricula with a substantial activity or session (M = 2.15, SD = 0.75) followed by data literacy (M = 1.9, SD = 0.74). Persistence and bringing out the best in others were the lowest‐rated social emotional competencies taught by two and four curricula, respectively. Although not shown, emotional intelligence was rated low (M = 0.45, SD = 0.69), with four curricula addressing it in any capacity.

TABLE 8.

YPAR curricula social emotional competency ratings.

Social emotional competencies	M	SD	Range
Appreciation for process/Empowerment	2.15	0.75	1–3
Data literacy	1.90	0.74	1–3
Persuasion/Motivation	1.40	0.70	0–2
Questioning status quo and taking action	1.30	0.67	0–2
Critical thinking	1.25	0.92	0–3
Cultural relevance	1.15	1.06	0–3
Forward thinking	0.75	0.72	0–2
Transference	0.65	0.75	0–2
Bringing the best out in others/Coaching	0.50	0.71	0–2
Emotional intelligence	0.45	0.69	0–2
Persistence	0.30	0.67	0–2

Note: 0: The curriculum does not mention anything about the component. 1: The curriculum mentions it but does not have any activity or session dedicated to teaching the component. 2: The curriculum has a substantial activity/session that teaches the component. 3: The curriculum has extensive activities and session(s) dedicated to the component.

Assumptions necessary before beginning a YPAR project

The extent to which the ten curricula addressed the ten assumptions deemed important for implementing YPAR was calculated using the same rating scale described previously. Findings are presented in Table 9. Appreciation for community change and civic engagement was most consistently addressed by curricula with a substantial activity or session (M = 2.45, SD = 0.80), followed by Community is relevant to youth physical and social contexts (M = 1.85, SD = 1.25) and Developing a team (M = 1.75, SD = 1.23). At the opposite end, the assumptions that were least represented include using train‐the‐trainer processes (M = 0.7, SD = 0.82), YPAR leading to a mindset shift in participants (M = 0.5, SD = 0.53), and YPAR as an iterative process designed to be repeated and not only led once (M = 0,4, SD = 0.52).

TABLE 9.

YPAR curricula assumptions ratings.

Assumptions	M	SD	Range
Appreciation for community change and civic engagement	2.45	0.80	1–3
Community is relevant to youth's physical and social contexts	1.85	1.25	0–3
During YPAR, youth must commit to developing as a team and continue to build their shared skills and connections through the YPAR process	1.75	1.23	0–3
YPAR is student‐led with adult support through recognizing the power and privilege in communities and bridging gaps in the systems that adults can access but youth cannot	1.35	1.10	0–3
Adults must explore their own positionality before and during YPAR	1.25	0.92	0–3
Adults need training and a mindset of shared power to have success working with youth as partners	1.10	1.29	0–3
Program sustainability through cultural and infrastructure changes will support YPAR principles and efforts after the end of the program	1.10	0.88	0–2
YPAR is built on both youth and adults using train‐the‐trainer processes to bring in new members to their teams	0.70	0.82	0–2
YPAR leads to a mindset shift of participants by the end of the program	0.50	0.53	0–1
YPAR is an iterative process designed to be repeated and not only led once	0.40	0.52	0–1

Note: 0: The curriculum does not mention anything about the component. 1: The curriculum mentions it but does not have any activity or session dedicated to teaching the component. 2: The curriculum has a substantial activity/session that teaches the component. 3: The curriculum has extensive activities and session(s) dedicated to the component.

Adult practitioner assessment of YPAR curriculum

Four adult practitioners provided feedback on the format, content, and appropriateness of the curricula. In general, the practitioners had positive comments about all of the curricula under review. They preferred the curriculum that was put into lesson plan formats and lessons that were “simplistic” or when concepts connected across lessons.

Across all four adults' reviews was a theme of reviewing the curriculum for adaptation to their own audience. One practitioner in their description of the content stated, “The format of the lessons are good and provide for an easily adaptable curriculum that can fit for different settings.” Another adult, when describing the appropriateness to literary levels, stated that “the curriculum is simple enough that it can be adjusted as needed to best meet students' needs.” An adult who reviewed both the YELL curriculum and the Transformative Student Voice curriculum discussed “meeting in the middle a bit” using resources from both curricula together.

DISCUSSION

Our interdisciplinary approach connects the YPAR literature from multiple disciplines to create a framework for future study. The Youth Researcher Empowerment YPAR Framework is created with the voices of youth, adult practitioners, and researchers to provide useful information that is inclusive and useful. YPAR works in the space between traditional research and practice programs and goes beyond disciplinary boundaries. Rather than being a “next step” for basic research to translate into applied research, YPAR does both efficiently and simultaneously, a necessary normative direction for adolescent research to embrace. For YPAR to grow in use and impact, evidence‐based curricula and programming materials addressing research methods and youth developmental outcomes must be available and tested through subsequent research. Our framework structure inherently centers youth voice in both the development and the design. As YPAR work continues, we encourage others to consider the implications for and impact on youth audiences in YPAR implementation.

Summary of major findings

Through an analysis of literature related to YPAR, few mention the curricular resources used for the program implementations, and reviews of YPAR work in various disciplines do not compare the curriculum used in the included studies. Kennedy (2018) and Rubin et al. (2017) both cited the use of Youth Engaged in Leadership and Learning (YELL). However, our findings suggest that the curriculum framework used in YPAR could include varying components to varying degrees. While the ability to adapt curriculum to an audience is always a recommended practice, moving the concepts of YPAR forward in a scholarly sense should include more focus on the process implemented and close the gap between research and practice.

Using the Youth Researcher Empowerment YPAR Framework to evaluate existing curricula revealed that the available resources prepare facilitators for the research steps, the resources focus less on preparing adults for facilitating an inclusive, youth‐focused space for both research and youth development outcomes. Our list of assumptions as underlying knowledge needed by adults aligns with findings from other research encouraging more training for adults engaging in YPAR projects (Malorni et al., 2022; Wilson et al., 2007) and findings from YPAR reviews in which most projects identified as YPAR do not include youth in all aspects of the process (Shamrova & Cummings, 2017). The most impact will come from partnerships with adults who are centered in youth‐driven processes.

This study included youth voices to confirm that the processes, actions, and outcomes that are included in the framework relate to youth perspectives. In an analysis of YPAR definitions, youth responses incorporated more statements about feelings, whereas adults focused on outcomes or actions. Adolescents may not be developmentally ready to always think first to outcomes or actions compared to adults. However, adults should consider that their youth partners may be entering the YPAR space with a different perspective, which may alter how YPAR information is presented and discussed.

The data from the adult practitioners reviewing the curricula reminds us that if we partner with formal or out‐of‐school time educators, they are likely to adapt the curriculum to their own audience and own teaching styles. Moving forward, perhaps priority should be to curriculum that offers options for implementation that encourage covering all the steps of the YPAR process with options that appeal to multiple adult practitioners and multiple youth audiences.

Strengths

This is the first study, to our knowledge, which outlines a YPAR framework and draws upon YPAR curricula comparisons and multiple perspectives to assess and refine the framework. Our work is interdisciplinary, both in the curricula reviewed and in the YPAR perspectives addressed. While other literature reviews focused on specific disciplines, such as public health (Branquinho et al., 2020), developmental science (Ballonoff Suleiman et al., 2021), or community psychology (Anderson, 2020), our perspective is truly based on the process of YPAR as a discipline itself pulling curriculum from all available fields.

The YPAR curricula review detailed in this study drew from 15 existing, publicly available curricula. These curricula were rated using multiple perspectives, including adult practitioners and youth involvement. The curricula ratings included interrater reliability to minimize bias, and the framework development included youth voice. These ratings provide guidance for identifying curricula that include competency and components of interest to practitioners. The curricula ratings provide insights into the assumptions that need to be met to successfully implement YPAR programming.

The Youth Researcher Empowerment Framework addresses multiple gaps in the literature and was assessed and refined by practitioners and youth. It provides accessible, relevant, and straightforward definitions for (1) the research competencies taught to participants, or the “what” of YPAR; (2) the social emotional competencies participants should learn or master during YPAR; and (3) the assumptions that must be met prior to beginning YPAR. The Framework provides an inclusive view of YPAR engagement for both adults and youth, honoring the participatory nature of the process.

Limitations

Even in our attempt to diversify our perspectives, we recognize that our work may not address all voices and views. We also acknowledge that our work is biased by our own backgrounds and perspectives of YPAR and working with youth as partners. The sample of youth and adults was from a midwestern state that might not represent other parts of the nation. We encourage others to review the definitions and refine the model from their own experiences.

Not addressed in this study or the existing curricula, but important in the study and practice of YPAR, is the complexity of the process and the time it takes to complete a YPAR project from start to finish. From our own experience and from other research (Bettencourt, 2020; Keddie, 2021), we realize that often YPAR projects are not completed through all steps of the research process. It is also interesting to note that the two most completely covered research components in the curricula are dissemination and data analysis—components near the end of the research process that are last in the process.

This study did not map or rank the steps of the research process in relation to the social‐emotional competencies important in the process. No consideration or adjustment is determined to account for a situation when a project ends when only halfway to completion. We also caution that the process of YPAR and the steps leading to dissemination are as important, if not more important, for youth development than taking a project to completion.

Open access strengths and challenges

A challenge in a curricula review using publicly available (open‐access) curricula is that curricula are not always in a public location or the same public location indefinitely. One of the curricula originally in this review was no longer available at the original web link at the time of publication. By the time of publication, other resources may no longer be available. Researchers and practitioners alike who use curriculum and encourage replication should consider the location and the longevity of availability in the location. Sites such as the Open Educational Resources Commons (https://oercommons.org/oer) not only create centralized sites that can house virtual resources but also, in the true definition of open access, allow for revision and redistribution.

Social emotional competencies

Creating and condensing a list of the skills and mindsets important for youth development through YPAR is a complicated and nuanced task. Throughout the course of our framework development various competencies were included and excluded before attaining the final list.

In the literature related to YPAR outcomes, often the concept of critical consciousness, or critical awareness, is referenced (Diemer et al., 2021; Foster‐Fishman et al., 2010; Goessling, 2020). Our list does not include critical consciousness, as we feel the concept was incorporated into the definition of Questioning Status Quo and Taking Action. In order to question the status quo, one must be able to critically reflect on their world. Developing plans for taking action related to changes in the status quo involves reflecting on one's role in the world, another aspect of critical consciousness.

In earlier drafts, the framework included ethics as a social‐emotional competency. The concept was not included in the final version. Developing youth who are led by ethical decision‐making is them through youth development and developmental frameworks (Darling‐Hammond et al., 2020) and should be considered for future inclusion.

Future directions

Future directions of this work include creating specific learning objectives for each research component and mapping the components to existing curricula. We plan to create a toolkit linking YPAR to educational learning standards for STEM and social‐emotional competencies to encourage both school‐based and out‐of‐school time use. The toolkit will include reflective prompts related to the social‐emotional competencies for use across the research stages, focusing youth and adult facilitator contemplation on specific constructs as they complete project‐related activities. The toolkit will provide relevance across disciplines and youth‐identified topic areas, making its utility transferrable and adoptable. The toolkit will also address the needs of adult practitioners who want to adapt curricular materials for their own teaching styles and youth audiences.

As mentioned previously, our work cannot incorporate all perspectives and ideas. We welcome future work to refine and add to the Youth Researcher Empowerment YPAR Framework. We call for more focus on the connection between research and practice and ask for both researchers and practitioners to center all aspects of YPAR on youth voice and youth choice to both provide positive developmental outcomes for youth and community impact from empowered youth voice.

FUNDING INFORMATION

This work was supported by the Research Scholar Initiative Award of the Institute for Government and Public Affairs, University of Illinois. The authors have no financial conflicts of interest to report.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The authors have no relevant financial or non‐financial interests to disclose.

PATIENT CONSENT STATEMENT

Written consent was not obtained as this study was determined Non‐Human Subjects Research.

Supporting information

Data S1.

Leman, A. M. , Dariotis, J. K. , Markazi, D. M. , Kennedy, Z. , Tracy, M. , Park, Y. R. , & Griffith, A. N. (2025). An interdisciplinary framework of youth participatory action research informed by curricula, youth, adults, and researchers. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 35, e13007. 10.1111/jora.13007

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the first co‐authors [AML and JKD]. These data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions. Some data may be available upon request.