Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship Volume 1 | Issue 1 Article 7 September 2008 Participatory Research and Community Youth Development: VOICES in Sarasota County, Florida Moya L. Alfonso Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.northgeorgia.edu/jces Recommended Citation Alfonso, Moya L. (2008) "Participatory Research and Community Youth Development: VOICES in Sarasota County, Florida," Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship: Vol. 1 : Iss. 1 , Article 7. Available at: https://digitalcommons.northgeorgia.edu/jces/vol1/iss1/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Nighthawks Open Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship by an authorized editor of Nighthawks Open Institutional Repository. Alfonso: Participatory Research and Community Youth Development By taking on the role of researcher or evaluator, youth experiment with new behaviors and possible identities — a key developmental task. Participatory Research and Community Youth Development: VOICES in Sarasota County, Florida Moya L. Alfonso, Karen Bogues, Meredith Russo, and Kelli McCormack Brown Abstract participants, not solely beneficiaries, they tend This article reports a case study of communi- to experience optimal development”; and (3) ty-based participatory action research conducted “adults can overcome negative attitudes and mis- as a community youth development activity, information about youth if they join with youth demonstrating a trend toward engaging youth in to address community concerns” (Camino, 2000, youth development efforts. The project actively pp. 11-12). engaged middle school youth in their communi- Community-based participatory research ties and offered an avenue through which they offers numerous benefits to youth, communi- could contribute to matters of importance to ties, and universities (for a summary see Al- them. Youth are presented as stakeholders in the fonso, 2004), including positive developmental research process. Concrete strategies for collabo- outcomes for youth, healthier communities, rating with youth are described and evaluated. increased utilization of community programs and resources, and improved research processes Introduction and outcomes (Green and Mercer, 2001; Landis, ommunity-based participatory action re- Alfonso, Ziegler, Christy, Abrenica, and Brown, search offers an alternative to traditional 1999; Meucci and Schwab, 1997; Minkler and Cyouth development efforts that “assume Wallerstein, 1997). youth can be developed separate from their Involving youth in the research process communities and in organizations devoid of may result in more reliable results because of community members” (London, Zimmerman, decreased social distance, broader information and Erbstein, 2003, p. 34). Community-based scope, increased credibility with the target audi- participatory action research is an approach that ence, inclusion of key stakeholders, enhanced actively engages youth in their communities and intervention attractiveness, greater acceptance of offers them a voice in issues that affect them (for the research design and results, and more accu- a discussion of youth development programs rate assessments of the invasiveness of methods see Roth, 2004). This approach is based on the and questions (Alfonso, 2002). premises that: (1) “strong communities are built Our study took place in Sarasota County, on active participation and civic engagement of Florida. Over the past several years, commu- members, including youth”; (2) “if youth are nity-based participatory research has been used able to participate in civic and public affairs as here to address local public health concerns like Published by Nighthawks34 Open Institutional Repository, 2008 JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND SCHOLARSHIP–Vol. 1, No. 1 1 Journal of Community Engagement and Scholarship, Vol. 1, Iss. 1 [2008], Art. 7 tobacco and alcohol use among adolescents other than the object of study, youth first have (Landis et al., 1999; McCormack Brown, McDer- to be considered stakeholders in the research mott, Bryant, and Forthofer, 2003; McCormack process. Stakeholders include “the people whose Brown, Forthofer, Bryant, et al., 2001). The level lives are affected by the program under evalua- of involvement of youth in the research process tion and the people whose decisions will affect in Sarasota County has varied. For the alcohol the future of the program” (Bryk, 1983). [For a and tobacco prevention research, for example, historical discussion of stakeholder involvement youth were hired and trained to conduct research in research see Bryk (1983), Coleman (1976), and with the intent of decreasing the social distance Gold (1981).] Research studies designed without between the researcher and the researched; youth the input of key stakeholders are arguably more development was not the primary goal (Landis narrowly focused than they would have been et al., 1999). Youth researchers were involved at had stakeholders been involved in deciding what the level of research assistant and had little con- questions should be asked (Coleman, 1976) and trol over the direction of the research process result in information that is less likely to be used and use of results (Kirshner and O’Donoghue, in the decision-making process (Gold, 1981). 2001; Landis et al., 1999). In our study, however, Evidence supports youth capacity for func- youth were actively involved at every level of the tioning as stakeholders in the research process, research process and collaborated with adults to so long as developmental issues are considered determine the direction of the research. A case and respected (Finn and Checkoway, 1998; Hart, study of VOICES (Viewpoints of Interested 1997; Hart et al., 1997; Hartman, DeCicco, and Civically Engaged Students) is presented as a Griffin, 1994; Horsch, Little, Smith, Goodyear, community youth development activity. Youth and Harris, 2002; McCormack Brown et al., 2001; researchers’ thoughts on community-based par- Ozer et al., 2008). Within the realm of public ticipatory action research are shared, methods health, for example, youth have contributed to and results are detailed, and lessons learned are research in the areas of wellness (Schwab, 1997), discussed. Connections between research and community health (Torres, 1998), HIV/AIDS action are demonstrated. (Harper and Carver, 1999; Nastasi et al., 1998), sexual risk (Schensul, 1998), tobacco and alco- Guiding Research Objectives hol use (Landis et al., 1999; McCormack Brown In keeping with the Community Youth De- et al., 2001), and physical activity and nutrition velopment (CYD) Model, the project was or- (Alfonso, Jenkins, and Calkins, 2003). ganized and led by a youth-adult partnership Most youth have been involved at the level formed between the second and third authors. of research assistant, not as research partners The model is used to assess gaps in services and (Kirshner and O’Donoghue, 2001), underscoring barriers to participation and tries to identify how a tendency for adults to limit youths’ contribu- best to meet needs through creation of programs. tions to the research process. Project organizers created VOICES to identify gaps in out-of-school time activities, barriers Participatory Research as Youth Development to participation in existing programs, and spe- Youth involvement in research and evalua- cific needs of youth addressed through systemic tion is seen as a youth development opportunity changes. However, through the course of the when youth are provided with opportunities for project, youth researchers, who were considered making substantial contributions to the research partners in the research process, included foci on and evaluation process (Harper and Carver, other issues relevant to teens’ lives, such as trans- 1999). Participatory action research provides an portation, family relationships, and use of leisure avenue through which youth can make substan- time. Ultimately, five domains of middle school- tial contributions to the research process (Kir- ers’ lives were explored: family, peers, school, shner, Strobel, and Fernandez, 2003). Participa- neighborhood, and the future. tory action research is based on the notion that knowledge generated through action and contex- Youth as Stakeholders in Research tual experimentation and participatory democra- To be involved in research as something cy will inform methods and goals of the research https://digitalcommons.northgeorgia.edu/jces/vol1/iss1/7JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT AND SCHOLARSHIP–Vol. 1, No. 1 35 2 Alfonso: Participatory Research and Community Youth Development process (Greenwood and Levin, 2000). possible identities — a key developmental task Participatory action research is multi-method (Dworkin and Bremer, 2004). Effective youth and involves participants in each step, from de- development participatory research programs fining objectives to application of results (Green- encourage youth to perform beyond their cur- wood and Levin, 2000). Professional research- rent capacity and take on new roles (Horsch et ers serve as cogenerators of knowledge within al., 2002; Roth, 2004; Sabo, 2003). For example, the participatory action research framework. within the research and evaluation context, sup- Stakeholders’ local knowledge combined with portive adults teach youth evaluation or research professional researchers’ training and expertise terms, thus providing youth with access to a combine to create a more valid,