Abstract:Youth researchers continue to pursue the ideals of youth participation in research. This pursuit reflects a broader concern for the problems of participant-researcher power dynamics in qualitative research. Youth researchers develop and adopt a variety of techniques and ethical principles that attempt to position young people as active research participants. However, these methods and principles have not solved the challenges of participation. In this article, I argue that there is a need to accept that some o… Show more
“…We were quick to shed the pursuit of any ideals we may have initially had about their participation, that is, that we would have full participation at each stage of the research process. Rather than viewing this as a reason not to pursue a participatory research approach, we suggest that by documenting the challenges we had to navigate, we have augmented the debate on the tensions of undertaking participatory research with marginalised groups (see Lohmeyer, 2020). While not all 28 young people participated in the workshops (a total of 15 participated, five of whom attended more than one), they each influenced the development of the research through their participation in the earlier stages (interviews and informal conversations); thereby developing participative ownership of specific elements of the project; Franks refers to this as pockets of participation (2011:22).…”
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
“…We were quick to shed the pursuit of any ideals we may have initially had about their participation, that is, that we would have full participation at each stage of the research process. Rather than viewing this as a reason not to pursue a participatory research approach, we suggest that by documenting the challenges we had to navigate, we have augmented the debate on the tensions of undertaking participatory research with marginalised groups (see Lohmeyer, 2020). While not all 28 young people participated in the workshops (a total of 15 participated, five of whom attended more than one), they each influenced the development of the research through their participation in the earlier stages (interviews and informal conversations); thereby developing participative ownership of specific elements of the project; Franks refers to this as pockets of participation (2011:22).…”
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
“…At the same time, academic research team members focused more on enacting research goals. A recent publication in youth participatory research posits that, rather than exercising paternalistic direction over youth peer researchers in the interest of promoting research goals, it can be beneficial to consider youth goals “in parallel” to those of academic researchers: distinct, yet proceeding in the same direction [ 30 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Unequal power differentials are a perennial challenge within participatory research [ 20 , 26 , 30 , 43 ], with academic researchers holding an advantage of greater scholarly knowledge, research experience, and status within research projects [ 44 ]. Peer researchers hold power and expertise in their own right, through lived experience [ 39 , 45 ], but this power may not be broadly acknowledged [ 44 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The potential assets of community-based participatory research approaches in youth mental health research are clear. However, there are particular challenges in participatory research with youth, including difficulties concerning power differentials [ 30 ], problems maintaining engagement [ 31 ], concerns of disclosure and anonymity [ 32 ], and differing research goals between academic and peer research teams [ 30 ].…”
Background
We describe the methodological dimensions of community-based participatory research through a description of study design, youth engagement, and methods/processes in the cocreation of knowledge within a Canadian study, the Bipolar Youth Action Project. This collaborative partnership—carried out by a team composed of academic, community, and youth partners—was designed to investigate self-management and wellness strategies for young adults living with bipolar disorder.
Objective
The aim is to describe the opportunities and challenges of this collaboration and to reflect upon the process of involving youth with bipolar disorder in health research that concerns them, and share lessons learned.
Methods
The project was conducted in multiple phases over 2 years: (1) grant-writing, with youth contributing to the process; (2) recruitment, in which 12 youth were selected and trained to help shape and conduct two research forums; (3) the first research forum, where more youth were consulted about the strategies they apply to stay well (self-management strategies); (4) data analysis of Forum I findings; (5) research Forum II, which consulted youth with bipolar disorder about knowledge translation of Forum I findings; and (6) data analysis of Forum II findings. Youth peer researchers with bipolar disorder were involved in a significant capacity at every stage in the process.
Results
Of the initial 12 youth peer researchers, 7 remained on the project from the recruitment phase until the project ended. They collaborated in the creation of two youth research forums that consulted youth with bipolar disorder on their self-management strategies.
Conclusions
This article shares what was learned from the process of partnering with youth with bipolar disorder in a community-based participatory research study.
“…The importance of involving young people with lived experience as active partners in health research is becoming increasingly recognized, with many policy makers and funding bodies now mandating consumer involvement. As a result, more and more studies are published regarding ways of engaging youth in research and making recommendations for the field (e.g., Bevan Jones et al, 2020; Hawke et al, 2018; Lohmeyer, 2020; Tsang et al, 2020). Benefits to youth partnerships include greater relevance of the research question, improved recruitment and retention rates, better long‐term outcomes, and ensuring that interventions and methodologies are youth‐friendly (Faithfull et al, 2019).…”
Aim
Youth suicide research stands to benefit from involving young people with lived experience as research partners; however, there may be a number of barriers to doing this successfully. The aim of this study was to identify the extent to which international youth suicide prevention researchers actively partner with young people in intervention research design, and to explore the barriers, facilitators and benefits to such engagement.
Methods
Ninety‐seven eligible researchers were identified using a systematic literature search and invited via email to participate in an online questionnaire.
Results
Only 17 participants (17.5%) at least partially completed the questionnaire, and minimal qualitative data were provided.
Conclusions
Analysis of the limited data together with the low response rate suggests that the rate of youth partnerships in suicide prevention intervention research is very low. Guidelines regarding how to safely and effectively partner with young people in this sensitive research area may help to address this gap.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.