How adults change from facilitating youth participatory action research: Process and outcomes

Children and Youth Services Review 94 (2018) 298–305

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Children and Youth Services Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth

How adults change from facilitating youth participatory action research: Process and outcomes

T

Heather Kennedy University of Denver, Graduate School of Social Work, 2148 S High Street, Denver, CO 80208, United States

A R T I C LE I N FO

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Youth participatory action research Adult outcomes Grounded theory

Youth outcomes of positive youth development (PYD) programs have been widely studied. PYD theory asserts that bi-directional youth-adult relationships contribute to PYD. Empirical research on PYD, however, predominately supports a unidirectional benefit to youth. The aim of this grounded theory study was to develop a conceptual model that explains the personal and professional transformation of adults (N = 21) who facilitated youth participatory action research (YPAR). The conceptual model includes a four-part process that occurred for the adults: experiencing overwhelming feelings, using critical self-reflection, learning to let go, and forging a collective identity. Receiving external support reinforced this process. Adults reported an embodiment of new knowledge that spurred many to integrate youth voice into their professional practice. This grounded theory study provides some evidence to justify the future study of the bi-directional benefit of youth-adult partnerships that are created within the context of YPAR.

1. Introduction

2. Adultism impedes PYD

Positive youth development (PYD) is the dominant theory and practice model for work with and for youth to reduce risk behaviors and influence known protective factors (e.g., self-esteem, belongingness, and life skills). PYD “engages youth with their families, communities, and governments, so that youth are empowered to reach their full potential. PYD approaches build skills, assets, and competencies; foster healthy relationships; strengthen the environment; and transform systems” (Hinson, Kapungu, Jessee, Skinner, Bardini, and Evans-Whipp, 2016, p. 10). Youth outcomes of PYD programs have been documented through rigorous meta-analyses and systematic reviews and include significant improvements in interpersonal skills, quality of peer and adult relationships, self-control, problem-solving, cognitive competencies, self-efficacy, commitment to schooling, and academic achievement (Catalano, Berglund, Ryan, Lonczak, & Hawkins, 2002; Ciocanel, Power, Eriksen, & Gillings, 2017; Durlak, Weissberg, & Pachan, 2010). Heavily influenced by socio-ecological theory, PYD theory considers youth to have “mutually beneficial relationships with other people and institutions” (Jenson, Alter, Nicotera, Anthony, & Forrest-Bank, 2012, p. 24). Though child and adolescent outcomes of PYD programs are well documented, the impact of PYD on adults is often not studied. It is plausible to consider that adults' outcomes of PYD are not studied because of the notion that youth are the primary beneficiaries of these programs and approaches.

Despite almost three decades of PYD implementation, many adults lack positive attitudes and beliefs about young people (Mannes, Roehlkepartain, & Benson, 2005). Importantly, lead scholars have noted that youth-adult partnerships, which is one bi-directional approach to PYD, has not been adopted widely because adults lack the skills and pro-social norms regarding power-sharing with youth (Zeldin, Krauss, Collura, Lucchesi, & Sulaiman, 2014). Another term for the lack of pro-child social norms is adultism, which occurs when adults' negative behaviors and attitudes about young people are reinforced by social institutions (Flasher, 1978). Similar to other “isms,” adultism has three interdependent elements: interpersonal, institutional, and internalized. Interpersonal adultism refers to the shared negative attitudes or beliefs adults hold about young people. These attitudes have been inscribed into language and physically manifest in relationships with youth. A statement such as “you are not old enough to understand” (Delgado & Staples, 2007, p. 32) is an example of interpersonal adultism. Institutional adultism includes the practices, policies, or laws that normalize and legitimize the marginalization of children and youth (Flasher, 1978). Age-based policies regarding voting and political representation serve to render youth powerless over the decisions that impact their lives (DeJong & Love, 2015; Godwin, 2011). Finally, internalized adultism refers to how young people internalize feelings of worthlessness or incapacity. In a

E-mail address: [email protected]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.10.010 Received 20 June 2018; Received in revised form 5 October 2018; Accepted 6 October 2018 Available online 10 October 2018 0190-7409/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Children and Youth Services Review 94 (2018) 298–305

H. Kennedy

advocate for social change (Baum, MacDougall, & Smith, 2006). YPAR is a collective activity, which reflects multiple perspectives and values, including those of the youth investigators who are often members of the communities they study. In a university-based youth participatory action research project, the adult researchers reported that they had learned and benefitted from the research relationship; however, specific knowledge or benefits obtained were not reported (Shaw-Raudoy & McGregor, 2013). A recent systematic review of participatory action research with youth found that practitioner growth was reported in twelve of the thirty-six studies that included environmental outcomes (Kennedy, DeChants, Bender, & Anyon, In press). In the studies included in the systematic review, there was little detail regarding how adults had changed. Given that YPAR seems primed to change adults' perspectives and reduce adultism, it seems important to understand the process that occurs for adults as they change.

qualitative study which examined how youth represent, resist, and reconstruct social images of teenagers, one sixteen-year-old African male described his experience with adults: “A lot of times, people see that you are a teenager. .. and that because you are a teenager, even if you have a good idea, you couldn't have come up with this, cause you're only a teenager. You are only in high school. What could you know” (Hilfinger Messias, Jennings, Fore, & McLoughlin, 2008, p. 164). Adultism pervades our society, yet is not often recognized as an axis of oppression. Adults play a critical role in facilitating youth development, but their negative attitudes towards young people may constrain PYD program's positive influence. Focusing on adult outcomes of PYD efforts reaffirms the bi-directionality of the theory and may combat adultism. While is it undeniable that youth engagement is a dialectic between the adult leader and the youth, there is a dearth of literature on the practice of PYD from the practitioner's perspective.

4. Theoretical lens 3. Adult outcomes of PYD As Freire (1970, 1998) argued, both the teacher and student are transformed by the act of knowledge production and construction. Friere (1998) illustrated this point through the following analogy, “The exercise of my teaching activity does not leave me untouched. No more than I could be out in the rain with no protection and expect not to get wet” (p. 89). Considering PYD through the lens of Friere's work suggests that facilitating PYD approaches are likely to change the facilitator and, also, that teaching and learning are reciprocal between youth and adults.

Studies of PYD approaches that consider power-sharing as a core principle have reported attitudinal shifts in adults. Specifically, these changes in adults are reported in qualitative studies of youth grantmaking, youth-adult partnerships in organizational governance, youth organizing, and youth participatory action research interventions (Authors et al., In press; Blanchet-Cohen & Cook, 2014; Conner, Zaino, & Scarola, 2013; Zeldin, 2004). Most of this evidence supports the idea that adults gain more positive attitudes about youth. For example, in a youth-as-grantors project, adult grant recipients reported holding more positive beliefs and attitudes about youth. Adult allies perceived that the money gave youth power, and organizations reportedly shifted their policies to be more inclusive of youth (Blanchet-Cohen & Cook, 2014). In an evaluation of eight youth organizations engaging young people in community governance, adults described experiencing a changed perspective about youth's abilities and a renewed sense of professional commitment to youth work (Zeldin, 2004). Even less is known about other professional benefits that adults receive from partnering with youth. In an older article, Shepherd Zeldin (2004), a lead scholar in youth-adult partnerships, posited that adults might incorporate positive experiences they had with youth into new professional endeavors, but his assertion was not studied. In a more recent study of youth-adult partnerships, adults described increased job-related confidence and competence. They also described a sense of satisfaction in passing down knowledge to younger generations (Zeldin, Petrokubi, & MacNeil, 2008). In other studies, adults described being more likely to advocate for youth involvement in decision-making after having a positive partnership with young people (Messias, Fore, McLoughlin, & Parra-Medina, 2005). Understanding the personal and professional benefits gained when adults partner with young people may motivate adults to engage in the practice more often. Though limited, evidence points to attitudinal shifts in adults and alludes to other professional benefits. In these studies, adult outcomes are often presented as secondary and overshadowed by youths' outcomes. Recently, many scholars in the field of youth development have called for more research on youth work practitioner processes and outcomes (Larson, Walker, Rusk & Diaz, 2015; Richards-Schuster & Timmermans, 2017). The current study responds to the need for the intentional exploration of how adults change by examining experiences of youth work practitioners within the context of a youth participatory action research program. YPAR is one approach to PYD that, by design, is likely to change facilitators because the relationship between youth participants and YPAR facilitators tend to be more egalitarian than those in traditional youth-serving organizations (Kirshner, 2008; Mitra, et al., 2013; Ozer, Newlan, Douglas, & Hubbard, 2013). YPAR involves critical scientific inquiry (qualitative and quantitative) in which young people gather information about pressing community issues and use that data to

5. Study aim This grounded theory study aimed to explore how adults change when they facilitate YPAR. I used data from five cohorts of YPAR facilitators (N = 21) with urban youth in two settings: a communitybased after-school program, and a youth homeless shelter. 6. Methods The Institutional Review Board of the author's university approved this study. All participants provided consent before engaging in studyrelated activities. 7. Program context Each adult in this study facilitated a structured YPAR program called Youth Engaged in Leadership and Learning (YELL). Scholars and practitioners at the John W. Gardner for Youth and their Communities at Stanford created the YELL curriculum (Anyon et al., 2007). While the original YELL curriculum included 55 sessions, the curriculum was adapted to better align with the two contexts in this study. In YELL, adult facilitators guide youth participants through a process of teambuilding, understanding pressing community issues, selecting an issue, researching that issue, and creating a multi-media product of their findings. The products from YELL during this study period (2013–2016) included presentations about police brutality and gang involvement, a digital story about Islamophobia, policy advocacy against a local school closure, creation of a community garden, creation of site-based recycling program, and a Photovoice project and community exhibition describing youths' experiences living in a homeless shelter. 8. Sample Purposive sampling was used to identify all participants who had experience with the phenomenon under study (Teddlie & Yu, 2007). The selection of an appropriate sample is a crucial marker of validity in qualitative research (Morse, Barrett, Mayan, Olson & Spiers, 2002). This study involved adults who facilitated YELL with mostly youth of color, 299

Children and Youth Services Review 94 (2018) 298–305

H. Kennedy

transcribed all interviews verbatim.

who lived in a large urban metropolitan area, and who facilitated YELL in two different settings: an after-school program in four public housing neighborhoods for K-12 youth, and a homeless shelter for youth and young adults (ages 15–21). Studies regarding youths' outcomes of these projects have been published elsewhere (see Anyon, Kennedy, Durbahn, & Jenson, 2018; Bender et al., 2017). In the after-school program, master's level social work students (n = 17) implemented a 27-week, ninety-minute, version of the YELL curricula as part of their first-year internship from 2013 to 2016. This study included three cohorts of facilitators: five from the 2013 to 2014 program year, six from the 2014 to 2015 program year, and six from the 2015 to 2016 program year. I conducted interviews with all facilitators from this program implementation period. Program facilitators spent at least an hour a week preparing for sessions, ninety minutes facilitating sessions with youth, and one hour in a weekly integration seminar. The integration seminars were semi-structured group meetings, which offered opportunities for both problem-solving and program planning. Adults spent 40.5 h facilitating YELL with middle school aged youth and at least 54 h preparing for and debriefing YELL. Youth group sizes varied, from two to twenty-two people. At the youth and young adult homeless shelter in the same urban city, one second-year student in the Masters of Social Work program, two social work doctoral students, and one tenured social work faculty member (n = 4) facilitated the abbreviated YELL program twice, each time for ten weeks. I conducted interviews with all adult facilitators from the Asking for Change program during the period under study. This adapted version of YELL was renamed “Asking for Change” (Bender et al., 2017). The Asking for Change meetings typically lasted for two hours each week. The facilitators spent approximately 50 h on preparing, facilitating, and debriefing the program. This sample was added to serve as a discriminant sample (those different than the initial sample to see if the theory held) (Creswell, 2012). Asking for Change served four youth in the first iteration and eight youth in the second iteration of the program. Table 1 includes the demographics of the adult study participants by program site. The majority of the facilitators were Caucasian, whereas they served youth of color predominantly.

10. Analytical approach I selected grounded theory as my analytical approach to explore the underlying mechanisms of an individual's interaction with a specific process (Oktay, 2012). My approach to grounded theory is rooted in the Straussian approach, where my experiences, the literature, and the participants allowed the theory to emerge (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). I engaged in a variety of techniques to ensure the trustworthiness of this research. These tools include research question selection, audits of data collection, member checking, memoing, thick description, and peer reviews (Creswell & Miller, 2000). Throughout data analysis I used analytic memoing throughout the constant comparative coding process to ensure the trustworthiness (Guba & Lincoln, 1981). During the first round of coding, which happened early during data collection, I engaged in the microanalysis of six transcripts using en vivo coding. For this first round of coding, I printed off each transcript and underlined passages and wrote key phrases in participant's own words in the margins. Analytic memos during first round coding captured emerging ideas and connections between topics. En Vivo codes were grouped in Microsoft Word and organized into larger concepts which became the codebook. When possible, I aimed to keep participant's own words. For example “Being thrown into the deep end” was a statement that several participants articulated in the early coding process. The set of 22 codes and their codebook definitions were deductively applied to the remaining 13 interviews with adults from the after school program. This supported saturation and integration of substantive codes into concepts. From the list of 22 codes, those codes that occurred across many transcripts were retained; those that seemed less central were removed from the coding scheme. The codebook was further revised to integrate and expand concepts that emerged from these 13 interviews. The initial conceptual model resembled a logic model, with inputs, and outcomes. During a final round of coding, the four facilitators from the Asking for Change program were interviewed to examine model convergence. The model was revised again. Concepts such as “self-awareness”, “motivation” and “curricula”, that were part of an earlier model, were removed because they did not converge with the facilitators from the Asking for Change program. The iterative theoretical interviewing and memoing allowed me to examine the theoretical centrality of the ideas (Charmaz, 2014). I presented a version of the revised model to three of the participants from the 2015 to 2016 group, two from the after-school program, and one from the homeless shelter. This process of member checking is common in qualitative research (Creswell & Miller, 2000). These participants conferred that the conceptual model aligned with their experiences. Based on the member-checkers' feedback, some of the concepts were renamed. For example, the first stage of the conceptual model was originally called “disorienting dilemma” but was renamed “experiencing overwhelming feelings” to more accurately reflect participants' experiences. I also revisited the data once again to ensure that the visual display of the concepts closely aligned with participants' experiences. All participants who indicated interest in seeing a nearcomplete manuscript were sent an early version to ensure appropriateness of interpretations. Only two participants responded to provide feedback. While these participants did not have substantive comments on the model overall, each made contributions that improved this manuscript. My positionality or epistemological and relational position to this research is particularly relevant (Lincoln, 1995). This study was heavily influenced by my experiences as a participant in a youth empowerment movement, as an adult facilitator of youth empowerment programming, as a trainer and funder for youth empowerment efforts. These experiences guided the development of the interview questions and filtered my interpretation of the findings. While bracketing, or separating the analyst's thoughts and feelings from the research participants, is

9. Data collection The initial interview guide included 12 questions designed to understand facilitator's experience with YELL. The interview guide included questions regarding the experience overall, changes the adults saw in the youth, and changes the adults experienced. I specifically asked adults to reflect on how they felt at the beginning, middle, and end of the program. Adults were also asked about the support that they received and the utility of that support. Additional questions were added to the initial interview guide over time to tease apart the process that was emerging. Iterative questioning is typical in a grounded theory process (Creswell, 2012). I conducted in-person interviews with six of the adults in the after-school program, and all of the adults who were facilitators at the homeless shelter. The remaining interviews with adult facilitators from the after-school program were conducted by phone. A member of the YELL research team at the author's institution Table 1 Demographics of YELL facilitators by site.

Race/ethnicity Caucasian African American Latino Asian Male Female

ASP

Homeless shelter

Total

12 2 2 1 2 15

3 0 1 0 1 3

15 2 3 1 3 18

300

Children and Youth Services Review 94 (2018) 298–305

H. Kennedy

their experience in this way, “I think at first it was really overwhelming. .. I think it felt like this really huge curriculum that we were asked to do in this very brief period that we had in a new environment with these kids we didn't know.” More than half of the adults did not have any prior real-life experience with youth, while nearly all of the facilitators noted some sentiment similar to “it [YELL] is definitely not like anything I have done before.” Adults who engaged with the youth in the after-school program described entering the experience with specific behavior expectations for youth that did not fit the context. One facilitator explained, “I was pretty scared, and not really sure about what we were doing, kind of scared of like letting up on the reins on the kids.” Many facilitators at the after-school program felt that there was an unspoken expectation that success meant maintaining control of the students' actions. Facilitators, especially within the after-school program, described feeling like the youth “weren't paying attention”. One adult described feeling self-conscious because the youth were playing with each other's hair during a group, which she interpreted as the youth not listening. In the early days implementing YELL, vulnerability was omnipresent.

sometimes a recommended process in qualitative research (Tufford & Newman, 2012), it was not well aligned with my constructivist epistemology or the critical and transformative process. In this case, I was a researcher, peer, and facilitator of the integration seminars for YELL. As typical of critical reflection, and reflexivity, I must acknowledge how this was a transformative experience for me as well. I was not a “detached voyeur” (Guishard, 2009). I was active in structuring critical reflection, supporting adaptations of the YELL curriculum, and coaching the facilitators. While I did not bracket out my experiences, I did engage in critical subjectivity, or an “understanding of, with discrimination, the psychological states of others” (Lincoln, 1995, p 285). I was reflexive throughout this process, ensuring that the participant's experiences guided the inquiry. 11. Findings This grounded theory study aimed to explore how adults changed from facilitating YPAR. A common process occurred that resulted in personal and professional changes for adults. The process that occurred for adults as they facilitated YPAR typically followed this pattern: experiencing overwhelming feelings, using critical self-reflection, learning to let go, and then forging a collective identity. Receiving external support from peers and supervisors was crucial for creating the conditions in which facilitators could move through the process. These processes led facilitators to embody new knowledge relevant to their work as social workers. Many of the facilitators described integrating youth voice-friendly practices into their professional practice years after facilitating YPAR. Fig. 1 illustrates how the process led to outcomes for adults. The box represents the eight, ten, or 27-week YPAR project.

12.2. Using critical self-reflection After relying heavily on the YELL program manual for the first few sessions, the adults noticed that the youth were not connecting with the lessons as written. Adults felt the tension between fidelity and youth engagement. A facilitator from the after-school program described this tension; “it is very easy to look at the binder that tells us everything and be like that is the activity I'm going to do. Then read it and be like okay and get there and be like this doesn't really work. Be like we can use some of these parts but we can't use these so just trying to figure that out.” As facilitators became more familiar with the youth, and after receiving support during staff meetings and the integration seminar, they began adapting sessions to align more closely with the unique contexts within which they operated. When the participant quoted immediately above was asked: “what was helpful about the integration seminar?” he responded, “I think learning that there was no magic wand that you could wave and everything worked.” Through individual and collective reflection, the adults learned to be themselves, be adaptive, and share power with young people. A facilitator from the homeless shelter reflected on the role of personal disclosure in creating an equitable relationship with youth at the site,

12. Process The following process unfolded for adults mostly sequentially as they facilitated YELL: experiencing overwhelming feelings, using critical self-reflection, learning to let go, and forging a collective identity. 12.1. Experiencing overwhelming feelings At the beginning of YELL, as adults engaged with youth, many for the first time, they became overwhelmed. Facilitators reported feeling an immense obligation to achieve program goals. The lack of initial training that they received often meant relying heavily on the curriculum guide, which often impeded their relationship with youth in the group. All of the adult facilitators within the after-school program and most within Asking for Change mentioned relying almost exclusively on the program manual for the first few meetings. Two different participants described feeling “thrown into the deep end.” Adults felt unprepared for and anxious about what might happen in the program. Another adult from the after-school program described

Our reflection afterward was like my gosh we are expecting them to share all of this information about what's going on at this point. They are taking tablets out to take photos of what is going on in their lives, and we are not sharing. It is not truly equal in any way because we aren't really sharing a lot of ourselves and there are assumptions about who we are. I remember thinking a ton about that.

Fig. 1. Adult process and outcomes of YELL. 301

Children and Youth Services Review 94 (2018) 298–305

H. Kennedy

verbalized a sense of collective identity. During the interviews, there was a marked change in language, which illustrated the transition to a shared identity. When facilitators first described their youth group, they did so using “they” language. However, this language shifted to “we” when describing their group's action research project. An adult from the after-school program said, “There is individual growth, but as a group, I think the biggest thing was just they were so separated and all over the place when we started. We really got a nice cohesion I think by the time we got done.” Another adult at a different site of the after-school program said, “I think we felt like a cohesive group right before we started the project and it kind of broke off because people were like this isn't what we chose. And so we were like, this is what we chose as a group. At the end of it, we felt very cohesive too.” However, not all adults in this sample created a collective identity with their youth.

Much of the critical reflection focused on the age differences between youth and adults. Only a few facilitators, those with more social work experience, described reflecting on issues related to the power of different social identities. A facilitator at the homeless shelter described navigating power and identity. He explained, Because I was very mindful as soon as I walked in the room, that I am this middle-upper class white guy who walks into a room of people… That I look different from them and that I have a very different experience from them regardless of how I look. And that I have more power and resources. I didn't want to be the guy standing in the corner who scribbles on a notepad and doesn't make eye contact. 12.3. Learning to let go

13. Mechanism Once the adults let go of the rigidity of the program manual and their behavioral expectations and focused on the relationships that they were developing with the youth, they began to let go. Adults had to learn to let go of their unrealistic expectations of what engagement meant in the context of an after-school program, some of their power–in order to let youth make some mistakes, and a rigid schedule or set of events for any given day. One facilitator from the after-school program said, “I realized that being myself is all they wanted.” This same facilitator said “I've talked a lot through this recording, it's just letting go a little. .. Let go of a little and gain a lot.” Many adults described starting with paternalistic ideals regarding expectations for youths' behavior in the program. Early in the year, adults struggled with “managing behavior” instead of supporting the voices of the young people. Adults also had to give up their idea of perfection. An adult from the after-school program described what she wished she had done,

The planned and impromptu support that adults received throughout YELL was important to their process overall. 13.1. Receiving external support Facilitators of YELL at both the after-school program and the homeless shelter received some form of ongoing support throughout the implementation of the program. MSW students who were facilitators of YELL at the after-school program participated in weekly hour-long integration seminars. One described the role of external support from the integration seminar in this way, Honestly like you can feel kind of like I wonder if the intern is having this problem or if it is just me? It was super helpful to go around and kind of hear what they were struggling with and what their challenges were and have them troubleshoot because it can feel like without that group it can feel isolating to try and figure out next steps for our problem.

I would have let go of the expectation of it being perfect. I would have just let it be how they wanted it. Because I remember doing a lot of ‘okay we need to re-record this, or over record this, or change the surround because you said it this way and you should have said it the other way.’ I think I would have let go more of like that adult expectation of a kid and just have them do it themselves and be more meaningful and make mistakes.

Another facilitator from the after-school program described the pivotal role of the integration seminar in her transformation, We had that space in a weekly group meeting as facilitators to just reflect and a chance to share a challenge we were having, and then people would ask questions about it, and we wound kind of be forced to reflect on it… There was just this space for not only validating the challenge you were having but to help you work through thinking about how to solve the challenges.

Fortunately, as the adults grew in their relationships and understood the unique needs and strengths of the youth, they made adaptations to the program, often in favor of incorporating more youth voice. Adult facilitators at the homeless shelter described letting go of journaling activity that they had planned in favor of group discussion because that is what the youth wanted to do. Once adults let go of the control, a feeling of group cohesion and true youth leadership began to emerge. One facilitator at the after-school program said, “They were much more invested in it once they had more of a role in what we were doing.” Another adult at the after-school program explained:

For the implementation of Asking for Change at the homeless shelter, facilitators participated in weekly staff meetings where they processed the sessions and problem-solved. In the first iteration of the program at the homeless shelter, the facilitators often debriefed the sessions in the parking lot. Two of these facilitators mentioned keeping a personal journal of their experiences. For both groups of facilitators, this ongoing external support was critical to the process. These intentional and impromptu reflection opportunities offered time to process and receive validation, which allowed the facilitators to reject feelings of inadequacy and normalize the difficulty of this work.

I think I got a lot more relaxed… You know, changing my expectations and kind of lowering them to what they want and meeting them halfway instead of being more of a teacher. I was more of a guide for them near the end and kind of letting go and letting them do what they wanted.

14. Outcomes

Facilitators had to let go of their expectations of what the experience “should be.” For example, a facilitator at the after-school program described struggling with perfection: “If I could do anything differently, I would have let go of the expectations of it being perfect.” However, once adults found their sense of self in the experience, they were able to work in more empowering and connected ways.

There were two primary types of outcomes associated with the process of facilitating YELL: embodying new knowledge and transforming practice. Embodying new knowledge happened throughout the experience whereas facilitators described integrating youth-friendly practices six to twenty-four months after YELL.

12.4. Forging a collective identity

14.1. Embodying new knowledge Many of the adults felt the intense emotional feelings associated

Once the facilitators' created partnerships with the youth, they 302

Children and Youth Services Review 94 (2018) 298–305

H. Kennedy

who used the term “youth voice” inaccurately in staff meetings. This facilitator, by living this work, felt compelled to advocate for authentic youth engagement, moving beyond the youth-as-program-recipients model. However, not all facilitators described youth-friendly changes in their professional practices. Facilitators who were no longer working in settings or contexts with youth, such as an adult addiction treatment facility, did not describe integrating youth voice into their work. Regardless of their current work setting, all adults said that they would advocate for youth's inclusion in decision-making when possible. Another surprising finding was that this experience made specific facilitators, those who had previously researched programs “for” youth, call into question and reconsider their approach to scholarship “with” youth. An adult from the homeless shelter described how facilitating YPAR allowed him to humanize his research about homeless youth: “So when I am writing about my research, and I'm writing about the data, their faces are in my mind.” These statements related to improved research suggest that when adults, who are researchers, are changed from facilitating YPAR, their approach to research and scholarship changes as well.

with facilitating YPAR. Facilitating the groups was described as an emotional rollercoaster that rose and fell depending on the week's activities and the composition of the group. However, as the group neared completion and the facilitators were preparing youth for interfacing with the public, adults noticed the ease at which they worked, and for some, a sense of completeness. One facilitator from the homeless shelter described, “For this brief period of time, in that one room on Wednesday nights, I felt this thing. .. I absolutely felt the high.” While not stated as explicitly and succinctly as the example above, this sentiment was echoed across transcripts: facilitators felt, at times, “in the zone”. Feelings of a forged collective identity further supported the feeling of being in the zone. There were three primary types of new embodied knowledge for participants: group facilitation skills, self-knowledge, and an expanded sense of young people's role in society. First, facilitators all described increased knowledge and skills from engaging with youth. Adults learned group facilitation skills, to be comfortable with ambiguity, patience, and the importance of reflection. An adult facilitator at the after-school program explained, “I think reflection will probably be the most important thing that I am taking away from this because it is not something that I did a lot. I have done a lot of group projects before. .. we just kind of got together and did the project, there was no after.” Being able to take time for intentional reflection is a skill central to social work. Adults also reported personal growth, including learning and practicing patience, developing an underlying self-awareness, and a sense of fulfillment. An adult from the after-school program described, “I think that it personally developed some self-confidence in me for being able to interact with youth and confidence in my relationship-building skills.” Another facilitator from the after-school program said, “definitely patience. .. working with middle schoolers, you learn patience.” One adult facilitator at the homeless shelter noted, “That certainly has changed my perspective. If you dedicated time and the right attitude and perspective and the right space that they are not difficult to engage and in fact that they are craving engagement at a real level.” Another adult at the after-school program described “they just want someone to listen to them, whether they are telling a joke or whether they are talking about something serious.” These soft skills are vital tools for social workers. As a result of this experience, adults noticed practices in schools and community settings that were marginalizing to the youth. One adult from the after-school program described noticing that, at the city council meeting, as a teen went to speak at the podium, there was no step stool for her to reach the microphone. This adult shared how disappointed she was in discovering how youth were excluded from participating. When adults acted in the world with teens, they began to see many of the explicit and implicit systemic barriers of adultism, which contribute to youth's oppression.

15. Discussion This is the first study to explicitly focus on how adults change as a result of YPAR. The grounded theory which emerged includes a process that adults went through: experiencing overwhelming feelings, engaging in critical reflection, and learning to let go, which allowed for a collective identity to emerge. The mechanism of receiving external support from supervisors and colleagues was key to adults' transformation. This process was supported by the mechanism of external support which led adults to embody new knowledge and skills. For some, the knowledge and skills gained encouraged them to be allies for young people in other settings for up to 24 months post YELL. Findings of this study help to contextualize the process that happens for adults inside the “black box” of youth programs (Yohalem, & WislonAhlstrom, 2010). All facilitators initially described some notion of feeling overwhelmed, unprepared, or “drowning”. Feeling vulnerable has been shown to be central to transformational learning. Jack Mezirow (1991) called this the “disorienting dilemma” in which perspective transformation occurred only after the disconnect between an adult's current meaning structure (attitudes, beliefs, skills) and an experience. The majority of adults in this study did not have previous experience working with young people and were asked to facilitate a process that was unfamiliar to them. The task of facilitating a structured program paired with the need to be vulnerable and share power resulted in adults feeling overwhelmed but may have created the necessary conditions to ignite personal change. In order to resolve the feelings of overwhelm, adults engaged in individual and collective critical reflection. Critical reflection is another concept central to transformational learning theory (Mezirow, 1991). Adults in this study described reflecting on sharing power with youth, personal aspects of their lives, and the ways that they perpetuated or actively disrupted power hierarchies in the space. Critical reflection allowed adults to learn to let go. By the midpoint of each of the programs, adults learned to let go of rigid behavioral expectations and notions of perfection. Facilitators learned that by letting go, they gained authentic relationships with the young people and were more relaxed. Learning to let go was a process that led to an opportunity to forge a collective identity with their youth. A little over half of the facilitators created a collective identity with the youth and shifted language from “they” to “we” when describing the group. During the interviews, this shift was most evident during the discussion of the final projects. However, it is important to note that many adults did not shift their language. The lack of collective identity formation may be explained by adult's perception of their role in youth voice work. Kirshner (2008) found that there are three types of youth

14.2. Transforming practice More than half of the adults described experiencing at least one form of transformation, personally or professionally. When I asked adults about whether they had changed their practices, several adults mentioned changing their approach to be more inclusive of youth voice. For example, a facilitator at the after-school program described how she, as a school social worker, meets with teens before family therapy to understand the students' goals. Another facilitator from the after-school program said that she used YELL activities in her group work as a youth mental health facilitator. A facilitator from the after-school program described how she plans to integrate youth voice into her 2nd-year internship: “I'm working at a school next year. .. I have told [the site supervisor] a lot about the youth voice and how important it is.” A facilitator from the homeless shelter who is a faculty member said, “I do think it has changed my agenda quite a bit and even the topics, not just the process.” This facilitator even described challenging her colleagues 303

Children and Youth Services Review 94 (2018) 298–305

H. Kennedy

integrated youth friendly practices and approaches in their work due to the limitations in their current work setting, there may be other reasons for not changing their practice with and for youth. Another potential reason for not integrating youth voice may be that, while the adult believes in youth voice, they may not see value in youth advocating for systems changes. Finally, this research only explored outcomes for adult facilitators. Future research should consider the interrelationships between youth, adult, program, and community outcomes.

engagement structures: apprenticeship, facilitation, and joint work. In the apprenticeship model, there is equal emphasis on youth leadership and project success. In the facilitation model, adults are available for guidance, but the emphasis is on youth leadership and much less so on the project's success. In the joint work model youth and adults have equal responsibility (Kirshner, 2008). Two of these models, apprenticeship and facilitation, may be related to the different facilitators' perceptions of their role in the project's success. Adults who felt heavily responsible for the project's success were more likely to have created a collective identity with the youth. Regardless, adults from either model of youth engagement described that they acquired new knowledge and skills. Outcomes for adults who facilitated YPAR included gaining new self-knowledge, increased self-confidence, and skills related to group facilitation. These outcomes can be added to the small but mounting personal and professional benefits adults receive from engaging youth. While these skills are vital for effective social work practice they are also relevant to youth work in general. These outcomes demonstrate that adult's likely change from facilitating PYD programs. Evidence of the benefits adults receive from this work can be used to foster prosocial norms for engaging young people. It was surprising to find how this experience was transformative for adult facilitators. For many, this meant, “living the work.” Almost half of the adult facilitators advocated for youth-friendly practice changes within other environments six months to two years after facilitating YELL. This work provides some preliminary evidence to support Bettencourt's (2018) argument that YPAR is a contact zone for disrupting adultism. While the practice changes often were related to integrating youth voice into programming and not necessarily engaging youth in social action; the integration of youth voice into policies, programs, and practices is important to realizing positive youth development at the community level. The importance of feeling this work emotionally is related to the idea that adults must “‘live out’ the work in their own lives” (Nakkula, Foster, Mannes, & Bolstrom, 2010, p. 54). Living the work leads to the formation of an ethical obligation to do whatever is necessary to solve the problem of practice (Schensul, Berg, & Williamson, 2008). Living this work may be one way to disrupt adultism within schools, organizations, and communities. Finally, the results of this study provide some justification for the training and ongoing support of program implementers, particularly for those delivering YPAR programs. Other research on the implementation of student voice corroborated the importance of training and support for adults implementing youth voice programs (Mitra et al., 2013). Implementation science recognizes that training and ongoing coaching are key factors in program effectiveness (Durlak & Dupre, 2008). In this study, the process of engaging in individual and collective critical reflection through the mechanism of external support was necessary for transformation.

17. Conclusion The data presented herein challenges the unidirectional study of PYD. Durlak et al. (2007) (3) called for more conceptual work on PYD to guide both research and practice. Larson, Walker, Rusk & Diaz, (2015) called for more work on tunderstanding youth work from a practitioners perspective. This study aimed to offer a conceptual model of the process and mechanisms that support adults, who were social workers, to change through facilitating a structured YPAR program called YELL. This study indicated that several adult facilitators likely have become allies for young people. It is central to transforming adultism, to relearn and unlearn adultist practices in relationship with youth. Data from this study suggest that one way to potentially increase youth-centered practices and realize PYD at the community level is for adult facilitators to experience overwhelming feelings, engage in critical reflection, learn to let go, and forge a collective identity with youth. This grounded theory study provides some evidence to justify the future study of the bi-directional benefit of youth-adult partnerships that are created within the context of YPAR. Acknowledgements I would like to thank and acknowledge Dr. Yolanda Anyon, MSW, Dr. Jennifer Ballamy, MSW, Dr. Lynn Schofield Clark, Daniel Martinez, and Dr. Deborah Ortega, MSW for their substantive feedback on early iterations of this manuscript. I would also like to express gratitude to the participants who participated in this study. Declarations of interest None. References Anyon, Y., Brink, K., Crawford, M., Fernandez, M., Hofstedt, M., Osberg, J., & Strobel, K. (2007). Youth engaged in leadership and learning: A handbook for program staff, teachers, and community leaders. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University, John W. Gardner Center for Youth and Their Communities. Anyon, Y., Kennedy, H., Durbahn, R., & Jenson, J. (2018). Exploring the contributions of youth-led participatory action research to youth voice and adult support in a community-based after-school program. Afterschool Matters, 27, 10–18. Baum, F., MacDougall, C., & Smith, D. (2006). Participatory action research. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 60(10), 854–857. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech. 2004.028662. Bender, K., Barman-Adhikari, A., Dechants, J., Haffejee, B., Anyon, Y., Begun, S., ... Dunn, K. (2017). Asking for change: Feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary outcomes of a manualized photovoice intervention with homeless youth. Children and Youth Services Review, 81, 379–389. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.08.028. Bettencourt, G. M. (2018). Embracing problems, processes, and contact zones: Using youth participatory action research to challenge adultism. Action Research. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1476750318789475. Blanchet-Cohen, N., & Cook, P. (2014). The transformative power of youth grants: Sparks and ripples of change affecting marginalized youth and their communities. Children & Society, 28(5), 392–403. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1099-0860.2012. 00473.x. Catalano, R. F., Berglund, M. L., Ryan, J. A. M., Lonczak, H. S., & Hawkins, J. D. (2002). Positive youth development in the United States: Research findings on evaluations of positive youth development programs. Prevention & Treatment, 5(1), https://doi.org/ 10.1037/1522-3736.5.1.515a Retrieved from. Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. Sage. Retrieved from https://books. google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=v_GGAwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP1&dq= iterative+grounded+theory&ots=YV_qIcEDi3&sig= dIFtfVVmYGCadYQMQ3qG5rdSXto.

16. Limitations This research has several limitations. First, this study included only adults in the social work field who facilitated a structured YPAR program called YELL in two particular contexts. Future studies may further test this conceptual model with adults trained in different disciplines, other youth-service settings, or with other YPAR program models. Other research suggests that the public action in youth participatory action research was critical for the collective identity to emerge (O'Donoghue & Strobel, 2007). While each of the YPAR projects in this study did engage in some form of public action, most often presentations to community groups, further research is needed to understand if critical reflection alone is enough for collective identity to emerge, or if public action is also essential. While this research found that more than half of the adults changed practices with youth long after facilitating YELL, I did not investigate the reasons why adults did not integrate youth voice into their work. While I suggest that adults may not have 304

Children and Youth Services Review 94 (2018) 298–305

H. Kennedy

research. Qualitative Inquiry, 1(3), 275–289. Mannes, M., Roehlkepartain, E. C., & Benson, P. L. (2005). Unleashing the power of community to strengthen the well-being of children, youth, and families: An assetbuilding approach. Child Welfare, 84(2), 233. Messias, D. K. H., Fore, E. M., McLoughlin, K., & Parra-Medina, D. (2005). Adult roles in community-based youth empowerment programs: Implications for best practices. Family & Community Health, 28(4), 320. Mezirow, J. (1991). Transformative dimensions of adult learning. ERIC. (Retrieved from) http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED353469. Mitra, D., Lewis, T., & Sanders, F. (2013). Architects, captains, and dreamers: Creating advisor roles that foster youth-adult partnerships. Journal of Educational Change, 14(2), 177–201. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-012-9201-6. Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. 1(2), 13–22. Nakkula, M. J., Foster, K. C., Mannes, M., & Bolstrom, S. (2010). Building healthy communities for positive youth development (Vol. 7). Springer Science & Business Media. (Retrieved from) https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=sJgN1J-0EaoC& oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=building+healthy+communities+for+positive+youth +development&ots=DxtruMLrlh&sig=llZEZb3SLhmGEsgxGenot-nT5GI. O'Donoghue, J. L., & Strobel, K. R. (2007). Directivity and freedom: Adult support of activism among urban youth. American Behavioral Scientist, 51(3), 465–485. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764207306071. Oktay, J. S. (2012). Grounded Theory. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http:// www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199753697.001.0001/ acprof-9780199753697. Ozer, E. J., Newlan, S., Douglas, L., & Hubbard, E. (2013). “Bounded” empowerment: Analyzing tensions in the practice of youth-led participatory research in urban public schools. American Journal of Community Psychology, 52(1–2), 13–26. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s10464-013-9573-7. Richards-Schuster, K., & Timmermans, R. (2017). Conceptualizing the role of adults within youth-adult partnerships: An example from practice. Children and Youth Services Review, 81, 284–292. (Retrieved from) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth. 2017.07.023. Schensul, J. J., Berg, M. J., & Williamson, K. M. (2008). Challenging hegemonies: Advancing collaboration in community-based participatory action research. Collaborative Anthropologies, 1(1), 102–137. https://doi.org/10.1353/cla.0.0009. Shaw-Raudoy, K., & McGregor, C. (2013). Co-learning in a youth-adult emancipatory partnership: The way forward? International Journal of Child, Youth and Family Studies, 4(3.1), 391–408. Retrieved from http://www.mmduvic.ca/index.php/ijcyfs/article/ viewFile/12621/3818. Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling a typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 2345678906292430. Tufford, L., & Newman, P. (2012). Bracketing in qualitative research. Qualitative Social Work, 11(1), 80–96. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325010368316. Yohalem, N., & Wilson-Ahlstrom, A. (2010). Inside the black box: Assessing and improving quality in youth programs. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45(3), 350–357. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9311-3. Zeldin, S. (2004). Youth as agents of adult and community development: Mapping the processes and outcomes of youth engaged in organizational governance. Applied Developmental Science, 8(2), 75–90. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1207/ s1532480xads0802_2. Zeldin, S., Krauss, S. E., Collura, J., Lucchesi, M., & Sulaiman, A. H. (2014). Conceptualizing and measuring youth-adult partnership in community programs: A cross-national study. American Journal of Community Psychology, 54(3–4), 337–347. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-014-9676-9. Zeldin, S., Petrokubi, J., & MacNeil, C. (2008). Youth-adult partnerships in decision making: Disseminating and implementing an innovative idea into established organizations and communities. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(3–4), 262–277. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-008-9158-z.

Ciocanel, O., Power, K., Eriksen, A., & Gillings, K. (2017). Effectiveness of positive youth development interventions: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 46(3), 483–504. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10964-016-0555-6. Conner, J., Zaino, K., & Scarola, E. (2013). “Very powerful voices”: The influence of youth organizing on educational policy in Philadelphia. Educational Policy, 27(3), 560–588. Creswell, J. W. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE. Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39(3), 124–130. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1207/ s15430421tip3903_2. Dejong, K., & Love, B. J. (2015). Youth oppression as a technology of Colonialism: Conceptual frameworks and possibilities for social justice education praxis. Equity & Excellence in Education, 48(3), 489–508. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10665684.2015.1057086. Delgado, M., & Staples, L. (2007). Youth-led community organizing. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/ acprof:oso/9780195182767.001.0001/acprof-9780195182767. Durlak, J. A., & Dupre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implementation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41(3–4), 327–350. Durlak, J. A., Taylor, R. D., Kawashima, K., Pachan, M. K., Dupre, E. P., Celio, C. I., & Weissberg, R. P. (2007). Effects of positive youth development programs on school, family, and community systems. American Journal of Community Psychology, 39(3–4), 269–286. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-007-9112-5. Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., & Pachan, M. (2010). A meta-analysis of after-school programs that seek to promote personal and social skills in children and adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45(3–4), 294–309. Flasher, J. (1978). Adultism. Adolescence, 13(51), 517–523. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Seabury Press. Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy, and civic courage. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Godwin, S. (2011). Children’s oppression, rights and liberation (Retrieved from) https:// papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1803459. Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1981). Effective evaluation: Improving the usefulness of evaluation results through responsive and naturalistic approaches. San Francisco, CA: JosseyBass. Guishard, M. (2009). The false paths, the endless labors, the turns now this way and now that: Participatory action research, mutual vulnerability, and the politics of inquiry. The Urban Review, 41(1), 85–105. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256008-0096-8. Hinson, L., Kapungu, C., Jessee, C., Skinner, M., Bardini, M., & Evans-Whipp, T. (2016). Measuring positive youth development toolkit: A guide for implementers of youth programs. Washington, DC: YouthPower Learning, Making Cents International. Hilfinger Messias, D. K., Jennings, L. B., Fore, M. E., McLoughlin, K., & Parra-Medina, D. (2008). Societal images of youth: Representations and interpretations by youth actively engaged in their communities. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 21(2), 159–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390701217466. Jenson, J. M., Alter, C. F., Nicotera, N., Anthony, E. K., & Forrest-Bank, S. S. (2012). Risk, resilience, and positive youth development: developing effective community programs for atrisk youth: Lessons from the Denver Bridge Project. Oxford University Presshttps://doi. org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199755882.001.0001. Kennedy, H., DeChants, J., Bender, K., & Anyon, Y. (2018). A systematic review of the environmental outcomes associated with participatory action research with youth in the United States. American Journal of Community Psychology. In Press. Kirshner, B. (2008). Guided participation in three youth activism organizations: Facilitation, apprenticeship, and joint work. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 17(1), 60–101. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/10508400701793190. Larson, R. W., Walker, K. C., Rusk, N., & Diaz, L. B. (2015). Understanding youth development from the practitioner's point of view: A call for research on effective practice. Applied Developmental Science, 19(2), 74–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 10888691.2014.972558. Lincoln, Y. S. (1995). Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive

305