Accepted Manuscript: Children and Youth Services Review

Accepted Manuscript
Participatory action research (PAR) with children and youth: An

integrative review of methodology and PAR outcomes for
participants, organizations, and communities
Daria P. Shamrova, Cristy E. Cummings
PII: S0190-7409(17)30208-6
DOI: doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.08.022
Reference: CYSR 3462
To appear in: Children and Youth Services Review
Received date: 28 February 2017
Revised date: 19 August 2017
Accepted date: 19 August 2017
Please cite this article as: Daria P. Shamrova, Cristy E. Cummings , Participatory action
research (PAR) with children and youth: An integrative review of methodology and PAR
outcomes for participants, organizations, and communities, Children and Youth Services
Review (2017), doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.08.022
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As
a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The
manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before
it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may
be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the
journal pertain.
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Running head: PAR WITH CHILDREN AND YOUTH
Participatory Action Research (PAR) with Children and Youth:
T
An Integrative Review of Methodology and PAR Outcomes
IP
for Participants, Organizations, and Communities
CR
Daria P. Shamrova, Cristy E. Cummings
US
Michigan State University
AN
Keywords: participatory action research, integrative review, children, youth
Highlights:
 Participatory action research with children and youth varies widely in approaches to
M
methodological choices and depth of children’s involvement.

 Children are often involved in later stages of PAR projects and are disengaged from the
ED
process of the analysis of the data.

 PAR affects children and youth as well as social service organizations and communities,
and outcome of PAR are interrelated.
PT
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial,
or not-for-profit sectors.
CE
AC
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
PAR WITH CHILDREN AND YOUTH
T
IP
CR
US
Abstract
AN
Due to an increasing emphasis on children’s rights, children’s participation in studies
M
about social issues has become a trend. The research community has been liberally utilizing the
concept of participatory action research (PAR). Thus, oversimplification of children’s

ED
involvement and misinterpretation of their voices has become a concern for many scholars. This
PT
review is an attempt to support the critical conversation about PAR, especially in regard to (1) its
methodological features, as well as (2) outcomes of genuine children’s participation in PAR for
CE
children and youth themselves, social service organizations, and communities. Forty-five
AC
articles were selected and coded for analysis in accordance with integrative review
methodology. PAR with children and youth showed evidence of positive outcomes for children,
organizations, and communities. However, PAR with children and youth still faces the
challenges of involving very young participants, providing meaningful participation
opportunities and addressing power differences between children and adults in diverse cultural
2
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
contexts. Discussion of methodological challenges and review of critical outcomes of the PAR
approach is provided.
T
IP
1. Introduction
CR
Since the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child was ratified by all of the
countries in the world, except the United States, participation rights of children has been an
US
ongoing challenge for the adult world. This challenge is especially relevant to their right to have
AN
a voice and to meaningfully participate in all matters that affect them (Liedel, 2012).
Participation of children in research is a big part of this challenge, which is simultaneously

M
rooted in strict requirements for children’s protection from the side of institutional review boards
ED
(IRB) and in determining what genuine participation and voice might mean in regard to research
with children and youth.

PT
Child participation is defined as the process of sharing decision-making and participation

CE
with young people, especially those under 18 years of age, on the issues which affect them and
their communities. “It is the means by which a democracy is built and it is a standard against
AC
which democracies should be measured” (Hart, 1992). Children’s participation in decision-
making around social issues is not sufficiently covered in the literature, especially in comparison
with their participation in legal proceedings or medical decision-making (Alderson, 2010).
A parallel exists between the lack of children’s participation in research and the level of
3
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
their participation in society (Arbeiter & Toros, 2017; Cheney, 2006). Participatory action
research (PAR) is a response of the academic community to ensuring the implementation of
children’s right to participate and to make a positive change towards fighting adult centrism and
challenging adults’ status quo. However, participation in research varies in its depth and
meaningfulness. Some examples of the application of PAR reinforce existing stereotypes about
T
children and prevent their voices from being heard.
IP
2. Literature Review
CR
2.1 Child Participation in Research
Due to the increasing emphasis on children’s rights, children’s participation in social
US
studies has become a trend (Greene & Hogen, 2005). The children’s rights paradigm has
AN
provided a great push for researchers to recognize children as active participants in meaning
construction (Fattore, Mason & Watson, 2010; Cheney, 2011; McTavish, Streelasky & Coles,
M
2012). In the case of the academic world (Petr, 2003), it has been accepted that in many cases
ED
researchers fail to involve children in research and evaluation, thus influencing decision-making
processes on various levels (Cheney, 2011).

PT
Children’s participation in research is not a new approach. Many academic fields, such as
CE
child development, sociology of childhood, and public health, have involved children as objects
of research activities for years. However, their involvement has been predominantly limited to
AC
children as a source of data. Additionally, the vast majority of researchers are adults. Therefore,
their pre-existing ideological voice influences their view of children, their relationship with
them, and their research perspectives (Kennedy, 2006). By not involving children in the analysis
of their data, researchers have the power to disregard children’s knowledge and construct
4
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
meanings derived from the data through an adult perspective, rather than that of a child’s
(Robinson & Kellet, 2004). This leads to situations in which children’s voices might not be heard
through the research and their perspectives might be underrepresented or not appropriately
interpreted.
Regarding general children’s participation, Hart (1992) developed the ladder of
T
children’s participation which is comprised of eight levels. The three lower levels involve
IP
situations when the children are manipulated, decorated, or tokenized. According to Hart (1992),
CR
these three levels represent false participation, when participation of children is used to put the
label of ‘child-created’ idea on adult-constructed view, to promote a cause that children have no
US
understanding of, or to create illusive involvement with no real participation. Hart (1997)
AN
understood five upper levels as “genuine participation” where children could be “assigned to
participate but informed” (Level 4), “consulted and informed” (Level 5), participation can be
M
“adult-initiated, decision shared with the children” (Level 6), “child-initiated and directed”
ED
(Level 7) and “child initiated, shared decisions with adults” (Level 8). In this study, we will
operationalize this genuine participation in research context as being involved beyond just being
PT
a source of data which reflects Levels 4 through 8 of the Hart’s ladder. It means that children and
CE
youth in the studies that were selected for this review were involved in one or more other
research processes which let them participate in some part of decision-making. However, it is
AC
important to acknowledge that genuineness of the participation is hard to evaluate beyond these
criteria based on researchers’ self-report description of the participation process.
Including this genuine participation in research into research design that is evidenced
through Levels 4 through 8 of Hart’s ladder can help to alleviate some of the challenges of
5
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
appropriately understanding the voice of the young person. While any involvement of children in
research provides us with information about what they think but does not necessarily lead to the
fair representation of their perspectives or voices in this process. Generally, research studies are
designed by adults, with the intention to gather the data related to topics and research questions
that adults identify as important. Therefore, equal distribution of power is one of the greatest
T
challenges of research methodology with this group (Jones, 2004; Pascal & Bertram, 2014).
IP
Having a long-term perspective in mind, it is naïve to expect children to acclimate to responsible
CR
citizenship and good decision-making skills if adults do not provide them with opportunities to
develop participatory skills in early years. One such avenue for this skill development is through
US
participation in research about issues that matter to them, especially in the form of PAR
AN
(Schaffer, 2012).
2.2 What is PAR with children and youth?

M
Participatory research with children and youth has drawn a significant amount of
ED
attention, in part due to the intensive push in the implementation of the UNCRC (Jones, 2004). It
is a transformational perspective which is a part of a continuum of participatory research

PT
approaches in which power is redistributed between researchers and participants. In addition,

CE
children and youth as participants are given an opportunity to be a part of social change agenda
(Nolas, 2011; Pascal & Bertram, 2014). PAR is not a research method by itself, rather it is a
AC
post-constructivist epistemological orientation that highlights the importance of subjective
experiences in knowledge construction (Minkler & Wallerstein, 2010). Thus, a variety of
different methodologies can be utilized under a PAR approach, both widely used methods (e.g.
surveys and focus groups) as well as more creative approaches (e.g. Photovoice and drama
6
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
techniques) (Clark, 2010; Langhout & Thomas, 2010).
Scholars still need to achieve an agreement around conceptual differences in participatory
approaches, some of which are community-based participatory research, participatory action
research, participatory research, collaborative research, community-centered research, and others
(Minkler & Wallerstein, 2010, Israel, Eng & Schulz, 2012). For the purpose of the paper and
T
based on Minkler and Wallerstein’s argument (2010), we will focus on the mutually agreed upon
IP
components of those approaches: participation, engagement, empowerment, mutual learning,
CR
capacity building and fulfillment of both research and action agendas. Therefore, it has been
determined that for inclusion in this study as PAR, certain actions and their outcomes need to be
described in the article.

US
AN
This lack of precise definition extends to the understanding of what constitutes children’s
participation in research. The research community has been liberally utilizing the concept of
M
PAR (Jacquez, Vaughn & Wagner, 2013). As a result, oversimplification of children’s

ED
involvement and misinterpretation of their voices become a concern for many scholars (Clark,
Flewitt, Hammersley & Robb, 2014). This may explain why some studies claim the use of a
PT
PAR approach even if the participation was not meaningfully integrated. Jacquez, Vaughn, and
CE
Wagner (2013) identified that among articles that claim the use of community-based
participatory research (CBPR) with children and youth as a research approach only 15%
AC
attempted to collaborate with them. Therefore, what a “genuine” PAR approach with children
might mean may still need to be defined (Mason & Hood, 2011).
2.3 Theoretical Underpinnings of PAR with Children and Youth
Critical Youth Theory (CYT) proposes that young individuals have their own agency that
7
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
is taken away from them by societal institutions (ex. schools). The adults who are the main actors
in this limitation of agency, base their judgement about youth on the premise of their
developmental immaturity, a concept opposed by CYT (Quijada Cerecer, Cahill & Bradley,
2013). Children and youth participation has been discussed extensively as a way to challenge this
status quo, as it has been codified by the UNCRC as one of the children’s rights domains
T
(Checkoway, 2011; Richards-Schuster & Pritzker, 2015). PAR is a mechanism through which
IP
agency is distributed to the participants, supporting the implementation of children’s rights in
CR
this context(Checkoway, 2011; Quijada Cerecer, Cahill & Bradley, 2013). Children and youth
may be involved in research design, data collection, interpretation of findings, as well as
US
dissemination of these findings (Jones, 2004). However, encouraging the use of this approach is
AN
still a challenge among the research community, as PAR approaches are more often used with
adults than with children (Liegghio, Nelson & Evans, 2010). Another main challenge that
M
participatory research with children faces right now is how to make it meaningful, fair, and
ED
ethical (Adu-Gyamfi, 2013; Pascal & Bertram, 2014).
In applying the Ecological Model of Child and Youth Participation (Gal, 2017) to a
PT
research environment this study will focus on three contextual layers of participation which have
CE
direct impact on outcomes - children’s level outcomes (micro system), organizations’ level
outcomes (meso system) and community level outcomes (macrosystem). Gal’s Ecological Model
AC
assumes reciprocal interaction between the contextual layers of participation. Checkoway (2011),
in his discussion of assessment of youth participation, also focuses on three levels of
participation impact similarly outlining the layers of youth’s personal and social development,
organizational development, and societal effects. The review of evidence of PAR effects on these
8
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
three layers will encompass this premise and highlight the connections within this review.
In addition to the context, Gal’s Ecological Model of Participation (2017) also attends to
children’s individual characteristics and participatory processes through which children and
youth are engaged in. Therefore, the current study will attend to the following elements of the
Ecological Model of Participation (Gal, 2017) in the evaluation of the papers selected for the
T
review: (1) Children’s individual characteristics (ex. age, country of origin, vulnerable
IP
background) (2) Participatory process (ex. methodology used; child-friendly data collection
CR
tools, roles assigned to children) (3) Context (ex. individual changes, organizational and
community changes within a cultural contexts).
2.4 Current Study

US
AN
Despite almost universal acceptance of potential positive outcomes of children and youth
participation in PAR research, there is no integrative review of evidence that would empirically
M
support this claim. Also, a little is known about methodological features of “genuine” PAR
ED
studies with children and youth. This review is an attempt to support critical conversation about
PAR, especially in regard to (1) its methodological features and (2) outcomes of genuine
PT
children’s participation in PAR for children and youth themselves, social service organizations,
CE
and communities.
3. Method
AC
3.1. Review Methodology
An integrative review is a type of literature review designed to provide an opportunity to
synthesize knowledge produced by multiple methodologies and sampling strategies which
differentiate it from meta-analysis, systematic reviews and qualitative reviews (Whittemore &
9
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Knafl, 2005). In addition, it was chosen as an approach to this review due to openness of PAR to
multiple research methodologies. Integrative review includes 5 steps: problem identification,
data search, data evaluation, data analysis and presentation. First, literature review highlighted
the issue of meaningful children’s participation in research processes. Second, comprehensive
data search strategy described below allowed to cover extensive number of articles. Third, at the
T
data evaluation stage the selection of the papers was based on the premises of meaningful
IP
participation described in the literature review. Fourth and fifth, data analysis and presentation of
CR
the results are described in the results and discussion sections. As a result of this integrative
review, the taxonomy of PAR outcomes will be developed for three systems – for individuals,
US
organizations, and communities (Torraco, 2005). Also, by Whittemore & Knalf’s and Torraco’s
AN
approaches, the discussion of interconnectedness between these systems of outcomes will be
provided. However, this paper does not aim to provide the fullest coverage of all existing PAR
M
papers but rather focus on those papers that fit the evaluation criteria and purpose of the review -
ED
to synthesize the PAR outcomes for children, organizations and communities. Therefore, the
major criteria for selecting a paper was a reflective discussion on those outcomes as a result of
PT
PAR. Throughout this atricle, the terms “paper” and “article” are used interchangably.
CE
3.2.Search and Sampling Strategy
To identify PAR papers that collaborate with youth and children, seven online academic
AC
search engines were used: ProQuest, EBSCO, Jstor, Project Muse, PubMed, Scopus and Web of
Science. Search keywords were “ participatory action research,” “participatory research,”
“community-based participatory research,” “children,” “youth,” “teenagers,” “adolescents.”
Articles were searched for using the keywords mentioned above in the 7 major academic search
10
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
engines. A total of 29, 152 non-exclusive abstracts were found, these were reviewed and
duplicates, articles that only contained one of the search terms, and abstracts that did not align
with the search criteria were eliminated (Figure 1). After those were removed from the search,
authors applied the preliminary exclusion criteria to further narrow the search. These preliminary
exclusion criteria are:
T
(1) Articles that focus entirely on theory building were excluded.
IP
(2) Only empirical English-language peer-reviewed articles were included.
CR
(3) Articles discussing studies in which only adults participated were removed.
(4) Articles in which majority of the participants, even if defined as youth or young
US
adults were over 18 years of age were excluded.
AN
(5) The focus of this review is on the impact of PAR on social issues. Thus, the
papers that were outside of this area (e.g. marketing or specialized medical
M
treatment).
ED
(6) Articles published prior to January 2000 were excluded. Articles published after
January 2016 are not included due to the timing of the search.
PT
Figure 1 is here
CE
By applying these preliminary exclusion criteria, the possible articles for inclusion in this
review was reduced to a pool of 242. The aim of this study is to analyze outcomes of children’s
AC
participatory action research; therefore, the key criterion for evaluation inclusion were identified
with this in mind. PAR implies that a study done in this tradition should incorporate some social
change action component. Researchers working in this tradition are expected to attend to
planning, observing and reflecting on social change as a result of the study (Kemmis &
11
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
McTaggard, 2005). Articles that do not describe the actions taken and reflection on the outcomes
of those actions were not included. The two evaluation inclusion criteria utilized were:
(1) Papers selected to be included in the review incorporate discussion of the
outcomes of children and youth’s participation in research (not the outcome of the
research or the answer to the research questions) for children themselves,
T
organizations, and/or communities. Authors looked at the evidence of children’s
IP
or adults’ report on what changes PAR made on these three levels. If children
CR
were involved in PAR research testing new teaching methods and the paper did
not include the discussion on how it affected students, schools or communities,
US
those articles were excluded as well. In addition, the attention was paid to the
AN
depth of children’s involvement.
(2) Articles that limit children’s participation to only being a source of data were
M
excluded due to the lack of participation component and therefore, less likelihood
ED
to have and describe social change and impact occurring as a result of the study.
The most prominent example of those papers would be CBPR research where
PT
children were asked to fill out a survey without participation in other phases of
CE
research. Another example are papers that had some elements of PAR
methodology (e.g. consultation with stakeholders) utilized, but only included

AC
adults in those conversations.
As a result of the selection process, 45 papers were chosen for the review. This comprises
about 19% of the PAR papers that were identified after the second step of the selection.
Therefore, it is important to state that this review does not talk about the full coverage of PAR
12
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
literature with children and youth, but rather a select group of papers that discuss the evidence of
PAR outcomes beyond the research results of the studies discussed in the articles.
3.3. Data Extraction
After the papers were identified, key relevant meaning units were identified. These
meaning unitz were authors’ names, journal name, year of publication, authors’ countries of
T
affiliation, authors’ fields affiliations, children’s countries, topical focuses of the papers,
IP
information about the children’s backgrounds, age, their role in research, methodology used to
CR
collect data as well as identified outcomes for children, organizations and communities were
extracted.
3.4. Data Analysis

US
AN
Qualitative data on PAR outcomes for children, organizations, and communities were
compiled in a database and reduced by extracting relevant meaning units. Each relevant meaning
M
unit was categorized into one of the three levels of potential outcomes that extend beyond the
ED
scope of each article’s research questions: (1) outcomes for children, (2) outcomes for
organizations, and (3) outcomes for communities. Some of the elements found in these units
PT
were personal reflections, evidence of participants’ feedback, or systemic effort to collect data on
CE
the action part of a study. Each each outcome, or relevant meaning unit, was extracted verbatim
and recorded in a table for coding. Meaning units were coded thematically and compared with
AC
each other to find patterns of similarities and differences. Related themes were identified,
grouped, and compared with each other (Whittemore & Knalf, 2005), resulting in the
development of a taxonomy of possible PAR outcomes (Table 1). To ensure the reliability of the
data extraction, the second researcher independently coded 30% of the selected manuscripts. The
13
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
coders met and discussed discrepancies in in approaches and codes. Interrater reliability was
established at the level of 94% agreement.
3.5. Description of the Papers
PAR with children and youth is a relatively new, but ever growing field of research.
Within the 45 selected papers by year of publication, the majority (n=35) were published from
T
2009-2016 (Full list of papers is available in Appendix A).
IP
The majority of the selected PAR papers with children and youth was published in public
CR
health journals (31%; n= 14), 18% of the papers appeared in psychology journals (n = 8), and
13% were in geography and natural science journals (n=6). Other papers were published in
US
education journals 11% (n=5), social work journals – 9% (n=4) and sociology journals – 7%
AN
(n=3). Other journal fields (e.g. disaster management, art) constitute about 11 % (n=5) of
publication venues for the sampled papers.

M
Authors of the selected papers belonged to a number of fields. Twenty-nine percent (n =

ED
13) of authors belong to public health and medicine, 16% (n=7) of authors were affiliated with
Education departments with the same number in psychology departments. Another 36% of the
PT
authors came from diverse backgrounds: practitioners, independent researchers, an

CE
anthropologist, a environmental scientist, and representatives from architecture/urban planning
departments constituted the small portions of the authors of the sampled papers. Each of these
AC
groups represented 4% (n=2) of all authors’ affiliations. Seven of the fields were only
represented by an individual researcher in each field. These fields are disaster management,
marketing, sociology, family studies, arts, international development, and social work. About
half of the studies (49%; n=22) were conducted by the interdisciplinary teams. Researchers from
14
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
developed countries (ex. USA, UK, European Union, Australia) produced 82% of the selected
manuscripts. None of the authors were identified as children or youth.
Seventeen topic areas were identified among the sampled papers. Four of the most
prominent ones are community resources for youth development (16%; n= 7), health (16%; n=7),
violence and safety (11%; n=5), and education (11%: n=5).
T
IP
4. Results
CR
4.1. Participant Characteristics
Children from developing countries were involved in PAR projects in 27% of the
US
reviewed articles. Sixty-four percent (n= 29) of the articles involved children of vulnerable
AN
backgrounds (ex. minority children, homeless, working children, LGBTQ). Forty percent (n =
18) of the articles did not describe their participants as having any kind of vulnerability.
M
Figure 2. Here
ED
Most of the children and youth involved were from 10-18 years of age (Figure 2).
PT
Interestingly, only 8% (n=4) of articles describe research that involved children younger than 7
CE
years old and 20% (n=9) of papers had children younger than 10 years old included in PAR.
4.2. Methodologies
AC
Due to the fact that the PAR approach does not prescribe the utilization of any particular
methodology, the distribution of methodologies across papers was particularly interesting. Most
of the papers were qualitative (n=35) with mixed method methodology being the second most
widely used (n=7). Only 3 of 45 articles discussed the use of exclusively quantitative approaches.
Eight out of 9 papers with children younger than 10 years old utilized qualitative methodologies.
15
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Fourteen types of research methodology were identified based on the analysis of the
selected papers. Analysis of traditional vs. child-friendly methodological approaches shows that
the papers that solely employ child-friendly methodologies constitute 35% of the papers and
31% employed solely traditional methodologies. The rest of the papers utilized mixed
methodologies drawing from both child-friendly and traditional research tools. However, most
T
frequently used methodologies were traditional qualitative tools such as interviews and focus
IP
groups (see Figure 3). A combination of child-friendly and traditional data collection approaches
CR
were a prevalent choice for researchers working with young children (less than 10 years old)
with the studies in 5 of 9 articles opting to utilize a combined approach.
Figure 3
4.3. Level of Children’s Engagement

US
AN
Papers also vary in the ways in which children and youth were engaged in the research
M
process. Most papers described involving children as a source of data, as well as being the
collectors of the data itself. Additionally, in almost half of the selected papers, children and
ED
youth were involved in the dissemination of findings and, in almost 23% of the articles, children
PT
participated in recommendation and action plan development (see Figure 4). About half of the
papers involved children in more than two participation areas. Also, researchers were less likely
CE
to involve children and youth at early stages of research project and in data analysis.
AC
Figure 4
4.4. What are the Outcomes of PAR for Children and Youth, Organizations and
Communities?
Table 1.
Taxonomy of PAR Outcomes for Children, Organizations, and Community Developed
Through Analysis of Excerpts from Action Parts of the Selected Articles
16
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Themes: PAR Outcomes for Children and Youth

● Knowledge gain and formation of social justice awareness (n=8)
● Social-emotional and cognitive development (n=12)
● Relationship with adults (n=5)
● Connectedness with community (n=6)
● Child as an agent of social change (n=11)
Themes: PAR Outcomes for Organizations
● Changing organizational culture to more participatory and child-inclusive(n=14)
● Sensitizing of existing programs to the needs of children and youth (n=12)
T
● Utilizing results for advocacy projects and public campaign (n=4)
● Applying for funding based on the PAR results (n=3)
IP
Themes: PAR Outcomes for Communities
● Creation of platform for intergenerational dialogue (n=4)
CR
● Formation of new outlets for children and youth voices (n=10)
● Advocacy for policy change (n=9)
● Raising community awareness (n=11)
US
● Promotion of infrastructural change within community (n=13)
Figure 5. Distribution of PAR outcomes in the selected papers (separate file)

AN
Based on the thematic analysis of the PAR outcome descriptions derived from the
M
selected papers, 14 outcomes were identified. They were grouped in three levels - for
children and youth, organizations and communities - based on the Ecological Model of
ED
Children’s Participation (Gal, 2017). Each outcome was mentioned at least 3 times with the
PT
majority of the included themes mentioned 8 times and more. At the individual level, the
authors of the selected PAR papers report the observed changes in children’s and youth’s
CE
social-emotional and cognitive development as well as the development of their skills as

AC
agents of change the most often. At the organizational level, the most frequent outcome
reported were changes in organizational culture to be more participatory and child-inclusive
and in sensitization of programs to better fit the needs of children and youth. At the
community level, infrastructural projects, advocacy project and raised community awareness
were the most reported outcomes. Interestingly, two relational outcomes - building
17
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
relationship with adults and creating platforms for intergenerational dialogue - were not
mentioned as often as other outcomes.
4.4.1. Outcomes for Children and Youth

First, many researchers noted that children and youth involvement in PAR encouraged
T
an increased social justice awareness and knowledge about the topic of research in the youths. As
IP
a result of their participation, children learned about disaster management (Haynes & Tanner,
CR
2015), health-related prevention strategies (Ross, 2011), and the process of decision-making
US
(Dennis, Gaulocher, Carpiano & Brown, 2008). Based on authors’ report they also gained
research skills (Ross, 2011; Maglajilic, 2004; Hampshire et al., 2012), civic engagement skills
AN
(Ardoin, Castrechini & Hofstedt, 2014) and teamwork (Ross, 2011). A number of researchers
found that through the research participation experiences children and youth become more
M
sensitized to issues of social justice (Morsillo & Prilleltensky, 2007; Bautista, Bertrand, Morrell,
ED
Scorza & Matthews, 2013; Betrozzi, 2010).

PT
Second, some researchers observed children and youth learning the process of taking
responsibility and taking leadership roles (Merves, Meszaros, Bond, Thatcher, Park, Kimbrell &
CE
Smith-Gregory, 2015; Stewards et al., 2008; Morsillo & Prilleltensky, 2007). This may be
connected to a noted tendency of increased children’s self-confidence and perceived ability to

AC
make a change (Stewards et al., 2008; Ardoin et.al., 2014; Hampshire et al., 2012; Morsillo &
Prilleltensky, 2007; Bautista et al., 2013). This increase in self-confidence and change-making
ability might be related to the observation that children and youth are given a chance to
understand their own identity and reframe their own experiences in a positive way in papers that
18
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
include their participation (Houghton, 2015; Zeng & Silverstein, 2011; Flicker, 2008; Bautista et
al., 2013).
Third, enhanced relationships with adults appeared as a theme in researchers’ reflections
as well. A predominant feature of this theme is that children and youth participation helped to
challenge existing power imbalances between children and adults. The fostering of this power
T
dynamic leads to the creation of environments where children were sincerely being heard by
IP
adults, were given a chance to work with them in one team, and learned tools for
CR
intergenerational communication and navigation within adult spaces (e.g. school kitchen)
(Malone, 2013; Chen et al., 2010; Conrad, 2015; Mathews, Mathews & Mwaja, 2010; Reich,
US
Key & Lin, 2015). However, Wartenweiler & Mansukhani’s (2015) paper found that
AN
relationships between children and their parents around the issue of corporal punishment did not
change after children’s participation in research. Additionally, some adults disempowered young
M
participants because the process of PAR appeared to contradict cultural norms of a community.
ED
In one study, children who participated in a PAR project had less time to help their parents with
household chores, which made some adults comment on the negative impact of PAR on
PT
children’s family responsibility (Hampshire et al., 2012).

CE
Fourth, community-based PAR with youth and children creates a ground for developing
and strengthening a sense of connectedness and belonging to the community. In marginalized

AC
communities, this happens through experiences of equal participation in problem identification
and development of ways to address and implement social change (Merves et al., 2015; Conrad,
2015; Ardoin et al., 2014; Flicker, 2008). Involvement in PAR gives children and youth a chance
to learn what it means to participate in community life and how to engage positively in creating a
19
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
change (Morsillo & Prilleltensky, 2007; Ardoin et al, 2014; Flicker, 2008).
Fifth, the outcomes mentioned above work together in order to give children and youth
an opportunity to become agents of change within their own communities (Stewards et al, 2008;
Ross, 2011; Conrad, 2015 Mathews et al., 2010, Bautista et al., 2013). A number of researchers
noted that, after their PAR projects, some youth helped to create programs that address their
T
needs, were empowered to seek and attain meaningful employment and/or college admissions,
IP
presented their findings in front of decision-makers, and helped their peers to make positive
CR
changes in their lives through peer-to-peer health prevention or empowering others to move
forward through life obstacles (ex. changing illegal child exploitive job into better one)
US
(Stewards et al., 2008; Chen et al., 2010; Conrad, 2015; Garcia et al., 2014; Mathews et al.,
AN
2010, Bertozzi, 2010). The same authors noted the interconnectedness of education, social-
emotional, cognitive, and relational outcomes and a potential summative relationship with
M
shifting status quo of children as passive objects of social change to children as active agents in
ED
this process.
4.4.2. Outcomes for organizations

PT
First, a number of researchers reported changes in organizational culture, especially, in

CE
terms of the power dynamic between care providers and children and youth as service
beneficiaries. It changed the perception of children and youth as passive service consumers to
AC
active participants of service delivery process (van Staa et al., 2009; Nelems & Currie, 2012;
Blazek & Hranova, 2012). These changes were facilitated through creating an opportunity for
children and youth to participate in the dissemination of findings through platforms (ex. city
council meeting) that were considered exclusively adults’ spaces before (ex. Ren & Langhout,
20
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
2010; van Staa et al., 2009). Based on researchers’ observations in some cases it helped to shift
adults’ views on problems experienced by children and youth (ex. LGBTQ identity in Wernick et
al., 2014; child protection of immigrant children in Nelems & Currie, 2012). In several papers,
authors noted that children and youth engaged in additional trainings for organizational staff or
helped to develop job descriptions for the future hiring process based on the study findings
T
(Chen et al., 2010; Snider et al, 2010; Ross, 2011; Kellet, 2010). Overall, researchers highlighted
IP
the infusion of participatory values into organizational culture as being a part of bigger social
CR
change agenda (Afifi, Makhoul, Hajj & Nakash, 2011; Clark, 2011).
Second, sensitization of program designs and implementations to the needs of children
US
and youth was found to be a predominant theme in PAR organizational outcomes. Researchers
AN
reported that inclusion of children and youth at early stages of program development (e.g.. needs
assessment in van Staa et al., 2009; or pilot testing) or into program evaluation (e.g. setting
M
program outcomes in Snider et al., 2010) influenced how well children’s and youth’s needs are
ED
incorporated into the program, as well as how adjusted programs are more developmentally
appropriate for the clients (Minh, Patel, Bruce-Barret & O’Campo, 2015; Siu & Kwok, 2004;
PT
Ross, 2011; Snider et al, 2010; Nelems & Currie, 2012; Brown et al., 2010; Ardoin et al., 2014;
CE
Dodington, Mollen, Woodlock, Hausman, Richmond & Fein, 2012; Soleimanpour et al., 2008).
Third, organizations developed awareness and advocacy campaigns that were informed
AC
by the perspectives of the children and youth on services provided to them (Wartenweiler &
Mansukhani, 2015; Snider et al, 2010; Nelems & Currie, 2012; Flicker, 2008). In one such study,
PAR with children in the Philippines empowered children to produce an educational video about
the impact of corporal punishment on their lives which then became a part of a training toolkit
21
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
that was used by local NGO network (Wartenweiler & Mansukhani, 2015).
Fourth, several organizations’ participation with children and youth in PAR promoted
their ability to apply for grants based on the outcome of PAR studies (Flicker, 2008; Snider et al.,
2010, Chen et al., 2010). One hospital-based study, that included the involvement of children and
youth, facilitated the development of a proposal to fund an educational program aimed at
T
teaching nonjudgmental communication to hospital staff (Snider et al., 2010).
IP
As a result, PAR with children and youth facilitated organizational level changes
CR
including cultural and programmatic shifts, as well as provided resources for effective social
issue campaigns and fundraising. Organizations were depicted in many articles as a tool for
US
leveraging change within communities, discussed in detail in the next section.
AN
4.4.3. Outcomes for Community
First, multiple researchers noted that PAR methodology provides a space for
M
intergenerational dialogue on a community level. This dialogue between adults and children is
ED
based on respectful relationships (Chukwudozie, Feinstein, Jensen, O’Kane, Pina, Skovdal &
Smith, 2015), shared meetings (Wartenweiler & Mansukhani, 2015; Conrad, 2015), youth-led
PT
workshops and discussions on community issues with adults (Garcia & Brown, 2009; Conrad,
CE
2015; Garcia et al., 2014), and better communication between generations (ex. teachers and
students in Reich, Key & Lin, 2015).

AC
Second, some evidence shows that PAR facilitated formation or strengthening of outlets
for children and youth’s voices (ex. youth council in Bautista et al., 2013). Malone (2013)
reported creating a youth advisory board for neighborhood construction project. In another
project, Youth Community Committee was created as a part of PAR project in order to create
22
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
mental health services for refugee children in Lebanon (Afifi et al., 2008).
Third, PAR researchers tended to involve children and youth in community awareness
and educational campaigns. The youth were encouraged to create an online platform and share
the results of the study through social media (Wartenweiler & Mansukhani, 2015). Traditional
media outlets (i.e. TV and newspaper) were also utilized as informational channels through
T
which the findings were disseminated by youth (Maglajlic, 2004; Garcia et al., 2014; Mathews et
IP
al., 2010). Additionally, youth were offered the opportunity to disseminate findings to other
CR
youth through a peer-to-peer education program that resulted from PAR projects (Maglajlic,
2004, Bertozzi, 2010)
US
Fourth, children and youth, with the help of adults, were able to participate in advocacy
AN
efforts and promote policy changes (Houghton, 2015; Garcia et al., 2014; Reich, Key & Lin,
2015). School-level policies were the most reported changes including menu adjustment in the
M
school cafeteria (Reich, Key & Lin, 2015), revisions to sexual education policies (Soleimanpour
ED
et al., 2008), as well as the elimination of discrimination and racism (Bautista et al., 2013).
Wernick et al. (2014) documented that as a result of a PAR project, the LGBTQ youth group in
PT
one school was able to change district-level non-discrimination policy, adding gender identity
CE
and gender expression statements and creating provisions for anti-LGBTQ verbal and physical
harassment policy. Another group of young PAR participants advocated for more strict Tobacco
AC
Access legislation by organizing a Legislative Day, presenting their findings at Senate. Later a
group of senators filed Act to Control Access to Tobacco (Ross, 2011).
Fifth, another prominent outcome was the improvement of community infrastructure.
These improvements tend to vary across projects including filling old mining pits (Haynes &
23
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Tanner, 2015), building new gender-neutral restrooms (Wernick et al., 2014), transport
accommodation for children with disabilities (Kellet, 2010), creating new facilities for water
filtration (Garcia & Brown, 2009), reviving playgrounds (Hutzel, 2007), participation in school
reconstruction after disaster (Zeng & Silverstein, 2011), building important community places
(Morsillo & Prilleltensky, 2007), or whole neighborhood utilizing children’s view on community
T
needs (Clark, 2011).
IP
Overall, PAR outcomes in the communities were widely discussed. These effects of
CR
PAR supported the premise of children’s participation as a mechanism of community change by
creating platforms for intergenerational dialogue and outlets for children’s voices, facilitating
US
infrastructural and policy changes, and raising community awareness of children’s related issues.
AN
5. Discussion
Based on Bronfebrenner’s ecological system theory and Gal’s Ecological Model of

M
Participation as its derivative, it can be argued that all outcomes of PAR for youth, organizations,
ED
and communities are interconnected. Children who are sensitized to social justice issues, have a
healthy relationship with adults, and feel a sense of belonging to their community are probably
PT
more likely to exhibit prosocial behavior and become the agents of change. Overall, Ozer and
CE
Douglas (2013) found that participation in research makes children and youth more willing to
create positive changes in their school. In addition, Kim (2013) found that healthy relationships
AC
with parents and teachers are predictors of children’s prosocial behavior. Research also shows
the positive long-term outcomes of the development of those skills for children and youth. In one
example of this, a longitudinal 20 years long study shows that early development of children’s
prosocial skills impacts future education, employment, and non-engagement in criminal activity
24
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
(Damon, Greenberg & Max, 2015).
At the organizational level, changes in organizational culture to more child-inclusivity are
evidenced through a number of outcomes. Some ways in which this organizational change
manifests include sensitizing their programs to the needs of children, presenting children’s
voices through advocacy campaign, and funding appeals to help organizations to improve their
T
services and serve children and youth better. This kind of participatory environment within an
IP
organization supports children’s agency, as well as creates a platform for the participation of
CR
children and youth.
Organizations can translate children’s participatory potential to communities and
US
leverage opportunities for creating intergenerational dialogue around children and youth’s issues,
AN
form outlets for their voices, and create platforms for their participations in policy changes.
Communities also benefit from PAR with children and youth in terms of raising awareness
M
through educational and informational campaigns around the issue, as well as receiving
ED
infrastructural upgrades. This process of change would be impossible without PAR impacts on
children, building organizational capacities, and negotiation of adult power in relation to children
PT
within communities.
CE
Despite the number of positive outcomes that children and youth’s involvement in PAR
generates, it is important to highlight three major PAR challenges on children’s, organizational

AC
and community levels that are derived from the complexity of participatory processes and
contexts intersecting with a child’s individual characteristics (Gal, 2017).
5.1 Challenge #1: Younger Children and PAR
Special attention should be devoted to the participation of children younger than 10 years
25
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
old, as because this group are highly underrepresented in the selected papers. Only 8% of papers
included children 7 years and older and 20% younger than 10 years old. There are two main
factors that help to contribute to the explanation of this phenomenon. One factor is young
children’s capacity to participate using their cognitive, social-emotional, and linguistic
developmental levels (Jacquez et al., 2013). This emphasis on the (in)capability of young
T
children to participate is a legacy of developmental psychology that emphasizes the lack of
IP
young children’s critical reasoning (e. g. Piaget). Another relevant factor is the prevalence of
CR
traditional qualitative tools and surveys among the most frequently used ones.
Development and validation of methodologies for younger children should become a
US
priority to the PAR field, as it would help to address the discrimination against young children’s
AN
right to participate or at least be consulted, as proposed by UN Convention on the Right of Child
(Clark, 2011). This leads to tension between the rights-based approach that states that all children
M
have an equal right to participate (participatory context) (UNCRC, 1989) and the practicalities of
ED
research (participatory processes). To address this tension, the concept of developing capacity
for participation has been introduced. It highlights that children’s right to participation should be
PT
treated as a value that drives our decisions in regards to the children’s involvement in PAR
CE
studies despite of their age. At the same time, recognizing that some capacity to participate (ex.
reflections on social injustice) might not be developed yet which in turn puts additional
AC
responsibilities on adult researchers to develop children and youth’s ability to participate (ex.
scaffolding) (Gal, 2017).
Only a few studies in this review invited exclusively young children to participate (ex.
younger than 7 years old). Clark (2011) proposed the Mosaic approach for involving very young
26
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
children to PAR which entails “methods which are active and accessible and not reliant on the
written or spoken word” (Clark, 2011). Similarly, Malone (2013) conducted research with 5-6
years old eliciting data on their opinion about the neighborhood by utilizing drawing and
followed up discussion. Young children are still quite dependent on the important adults in their
lives, therefore, Clark (2011) proposes to include these individuals in the research process as
T
well (2011).
IP
5.2 Challenge #2: Meaningful Participation: Methodological Insights
CR
Participation patterns were an issue that became apparent within these articles. Children
and youth tend to be involved at the latest stages of research and are under-included at early and
US
data analysis stages. This trend could create a situation in which children can be used as
AN
decoration or their voices can be manipulated (Hart, 1992). While the selected papers did not
show any of these signs, the majority of the 155 papers removed from the review were excluded
M
due to the inclusion of children as a data source only during data collection phase. The situation
ED
in which a researcher identifies a problem, propose research questions, designs a study, and
analyzes the data might possess a higher risk of exercising power over children’s opinions or
PT
misinterpreting their voices (James, 2007). Though many projects are limited in the amount of
CE
time and resources they can spend on field work, expanding the areas of children and youth
participation, beyond their use as a data source, must be prioritized as a part of research design.
AC
However, the selected PAR papers with children and youth with a “genuine” level of
participation tend to involve an average of 20-25 children and youth per paper which can be
explained by logistical, methodological, and ethical reasons. The process of involving and
training children and youth about research takes time, money, and staff resources. The attention
27
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
that each participant needs to be genuinely engaged may vary but is generally pretty high
(Bradbury-Jones & Taylor, 2015). Quantitative approaches may promote involvement of higher
number of children and youth but may not always be the best choice for facilitation of genuine
participation (Bradbury-Jones & Taylor, 2015).
Based on the studies selected in this review, the following set of enabling methodological
T
choices has been identified that support meaningful participation:
IP
○ Training: Researchers noted that meaningful participation of children requires
CR
trust building time and activities such as training. If methodology requires the use
of expensive equipment (ex. photo and video cameras), it is important to train
US
children on how to use it carefully but still leave them a space to capture their
AN
voice through the recording devices on their own (Blazek & Hranova, 2012).
Training for the children and youth participants, especially from the marginalized
M
groups, is a key due to their lack of confidence in the ability to perform

ED
participatory tasks on their own (Bertozzi, 2010; Blazek & Hranova, 2012; Chen
et al., 2010; Foster-Fishman et al., 2010). Some children and youth participated in
PT
the selected studies reported not confidents and uncomfortable performing

CE
research tasks as well (Chukwudozie et al., 2015; Soleimanpour et al., 2008). The
PAR training done before the main project begins serves as an empowerment tool
AC
that might determine the outcome of the participation. Moreover, the training
itself serves as a rapport building between young participants and the researchers.
Inclusion on PAR team of a younger researcher (ex. university student, youth
from the community) was noted to have positive effect on trust building and
28
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
training outcomes (Afifi et al., 2011; Blazek & Hranova, 2012).
○ Child-friendly data collection tools: Another feature that differentiates
meaningful participation is the use of age-appropriate data collection tools that
facilitates interest and ability to stay focused for children of different ages
(Chukwudozie et al., 2015; Foster-Fishman et al., 2010; Wickenden & Kembhavi-
T
Tam, 2014). Children find that body mapping, social service mapping, visioning
IP
trees, and Family Album Techniques are easy and fun ways to respond to the
CR
adults’ request for the information (Chukwudozie et al., 2015). However, the risks
associate with the reduced rigor of those data collection tools are noted as well
(Chukwudozie et al., 2015).

US
AN
○ Involvement in data analysis: One more way to ensure the meaningfulness of
children’s participation in research is their involvement in data analysis

M
(Chukwudozie et al., 2015; Chen et al., 2010; Foster-Fishman et al., 2010). This
ED
can be conducted in the form of a reflection workshop that provides a space for
children to voice their opinion about the findings and collaborate on the
PT
recommendations (Chukwudozie et al., 2015), a group theming exercise (Chen et

CE
al., 2010), or a set of data analysis games (ex. ReACT) (Foster-Fishman et al.,
2010).
AC
○ Meaningful venues for dissemination. It is important for the children and youth
participants to present the results of their work for those who can truly make a
change in the issue of their concern, otherwise, children might feel that they work
has been devalued (Soleimanpour et al., 2008).
29
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
5.3 Challenge #3: Cultural Context and PAR with Children and Youth
Only 27 % of the papers conducted were with children from developing countries.
Overall, research done with these children is disproportionate to the severity of issues and the
number of children that live in developing vs. developed countries. Numerous articles have been
T
written on child well-being in the developed countries, while only 1% of the research targeted
IP
the issues of child well-being in the developing world (Pollard & Lee, 2003). This is especially
CR
disproportionate, as the children in the developing world comprise 95% of the total world’s
population of children (Liddell, 1998). The sample of papers selected represent a wide variety of
US
children’s location. However, the level of children’s participation varies across developing
AN
countries as they represent a wide range of cultures (Liebel, 2012).
It is important to take into account that of the 12 papers (27%) that involved children
M
from developing countries, eight were done by or in partnership with researchers from the
ED
developed world. In part, this can be explained by the larger research infrastructure that exists in
the West allowing the development of a higher quality of PAR studies, as well as the presence of
PT
international aid agencies committed to children participation in developing countries. Another

CE
reason might be rooted in the cultural view on children’s role in society and their role in decision
making. Despite these barriers to researchers in developing countries conducting studies

AC
independently of collaboration with those in developed countries, it is an obligation of the
supporting researchers to honor and facilitate the agency and vision of the researchers and
participants situated in the area being studied (Liedel, 2012).
The social distance between adults and children varies across cultures and therefore it is
30
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
important to reflect on the relationship we build while conducting PAR studies with children and
youth. The frequency analysis of identified themes showed that the outcomes that reflect the
quality of relationship between children and adults (ex. building relationship with adults, creating
platform for intergenerational dialogue) were not reported as often as other outcomes. We argue
that the lack of focus on these PAR outcomes might be a reason for lack of sustainability of the
T
actions taken as a result of PAR with children and youth. For example, Garcia et al. (2014)
IP
noted that despite the immediate success of a community renovation project in the U.S., the
CR
sustainability of the outcomes was lacking. The playground created with the children was not
available to them after sometime and local powers contradicted the policy changes promoted by
US
youth which disempowered the research team and the youth who participated in the project
AN
(Garcia et al., 2014). The playground was locked by the adults who deemed it to be a dangerous
for the youth.. Building the relationship between the adults and youth in this community would
M
help prevent the playground closure and ensure that trust between groups is achieved.
ED
In the context of developing countries, Hampshire et al. (2012) reported that some of the
children participated in the PAR had less time for school work and household chores. Taking
PT
into account that in some countries children a large contributor to home economics, their
CE
participation in the research might seem secondary and not approved by the adults. Installing
opportunity for intergenerational dialogue into the project would allow for negotiation of the
AC
time for children to participate and inform adults about the importance of children’s
participation.
In patriarchal communities, children and youth might not be encourage to be vocal about
their opinions, especially, while in the the presence of the adults (Afifi et al., 2011; Chukwudozie
31
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
et al., 2015 ). Therefore the PAR team in Lebanon created a youth committee within which
children and youth shared their opinions more freely (Afifi et al., 2011). In Sub-Saharan Africa,
Chukwudozie and collegues (2015) reported that for the negotiating the power differences
between adults and children, they held the meetings with the village chiefs. In order to ensure
that children’s voices are heard, the research team discussed the project in details with the
T
caregivers and created a team of peer researchers who were accompanied by the trained adult
IP
researcher to support children and youth in the research tasks and ensure their safety. In addition,
CR
children who are socialized to agree with adults tend to respond in socially desirable ways. The
patterns of socially conforming answers were noted in the PAR study with disabled children in
US
India and Sri Lanka (Wickenden & Kembhavi-Tam, 2014). The research team changed their
AN
style of communication with the children to more informal and relaxed which prompted more
authentic answers (Wickenden & Kembhavi-Tam, 2014)..

M
Three main barriers for conducting meaningful PAR were mentioned in the studies: (1) a
ED
lack of funding for PAR research, (2) the time it consumes for all involved, (3) and the political
climate preventing meaningful distribution of the results of PAR with children and youth.
PT
Researchers agreed that these factors might negatively influence the rigorous PAR procedures
CE
and the meaningfulness of the children’s involvement (Chukwudozie et al., 2015; Flicker, 2008;
Nelems & Currie, 2012). In addition, if a PAR study is being carried out in an educational
AC
setting, some researchers noted that they had to adjust their research plans according to school
calendars, which may mean cutting out some participatory activities (Soleimanpour et al., 2008).
Application of the Ecological Model of Participation (Gal, 2017) allowed us to analyze
the challenges presented above by looking at the intersection between individual characteristics
32
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
of a child, participatory processes and contexts. Attending to the issues of cultural sensitivity of
children’s participation (context) is impossible without adjusting methodology and protocols
(participatory process). Additionally, the creation of PAR methodology is difficult without
addressing the developmental abilities of the child to participate, especially in cases when the
development of children’s participatory skills by the research team is inevitable part of PAR
T
methodology. Addressing the challenges that PAR with children and youth face must include
IP
taking into account reciprocal interactions between individual, process, and context
CR
characteristics of PAR studies.
6. Limitations
US
As a term, PAR is inconsistently used and often operationalized in different ways,
AN
depending on the article. Jaquez et al. (2013) also noted that CBPR, action research, or
participatory action research and other approaches from this continuum do not have a clear
M
definition and, moreover, have their definition vary from field to field. Therefore, several terms
ED
were used to retrieved papers for this review. However, due to this terminological confusion,
there are might be studies that did not end up in the final list, due to the ways authors name it or
PT
chose to use keywords.

CE
Another limitation comes from the fact that descriptions of PAR outcomes are often
anecdotal and based on authors’ reflections. Reporting vs. not reporting of PAR outcomes might
AC
be related to the length of community involvement, lack of resources in assessing the impacts of
PAR approach itself, lack of time, and limited lengths of publications. Some papers included
deep reflections on all three areas of reviewed outcomes but were not consistent in the
description of their sample. As a result, they were excluded from the review due to inability to
33
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
determine whether participants under 18 years old took part.
Finally, the results of PAR studies can be disseminated in multiple forms that are not
academic peer-review literature including organizational evaluation report, community
presentations, and artistic forms of expression. Therefore, it is important to note that this review
is limited to only academic peer-review sources in English. It can be speculated that this might
T
skew the findings into more positive side as some lessons learned might be more likely to exist
IP
in the “grey” literature. In addition, IRB requirements might influence which studies are
CR
published in the peer-review journals as well.
7.Further direction of the research
US
Future research might be beneficial especially in the area of PAR outcomes in different
AN
cultural contexts as well as in regard to the relationship of these outcomes depending on
children’s age, the methodology used, and area of participation. Only two articles reported some
M
negative consequences of children’s participation in research. Despite the overall positive

ED
influence of children’s participation, possible negative outcomes need additional attention and
investigation in order to establish PAR with children and youth as an ethical epistemological
PT
paradigm.
CE
Additionally, there is a need for some standardization in the way PAR studies are
presented and published. While reviewing PAR studies with children and youth we have noticed
AC
multiple times the discrepancies in reporting formats of PAR research. There are several
recommendations can be made for PAR authors including importance of reporting:
- Children’s age;
- Depth of children’s and youth involvement including the exact roles they play
34
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
- Distribution of power between adults and children in research process including
the discussion of the nature of their relationship (ex. who initiated the project; at
what stage children are introduced to the idea; description of cultural context in
which child-adult relationship occurs);
- If the methodology is identified as PAR then reporting on the set of actions
T
implemented and the outcomes of those actions observed including problematic
IP
outcomes is vital.
CR
It would help in further systematic research and integrative analysis of these studies. Further
studies might propose the standard format of PAR studies reporting in academic journals that
US
would adjust for specificity of the PAR with children and youth.
AN
8. Conclusion
PAR with children and youth has shifted from being an exotic approach to research to
M
occupying a space within research epistemologies. This integrative review provides evidence of
ED
positive consequences of the reviewed PAR studies for children, organizations, and
communities. However, the academic community needs to continue its critical dialogues around
PT
issues surrounding children’s participation such as access to participation by young children,

CE
expanding the areas of participation in research, methodological tools for children and youth
participation, as well as the cultural sensitivity of PAR as the approach of engaging children and
AC
youth in decision-making around social issues. The results of this integrative review could be
used by practitioners who would like to engage their organizations into PAR with children and
youth to justify its potential benefit for children, organizations, and communities, to
management, funders, and other stakeholders.
35
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public,
commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
T
IP
References
CR
Adu-Gyamfi, J. (2013). Can children and young people be empowered in participatory
initiatives? Perspectives from young people’s participation in policy formulation and
US
implementation in Ghana. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(10), 1766–1772.
AN
doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.08.003
Afifi, R. A., Makhoul, J., Hajj, T. E., & Nakkash, R. T. (2011). Developing a logic model for
M
youth mental health: Participatory research with a refugee community in Beirut. Health
ED
Policy and Planning, 26(6), 508–517. doi:10.1093/heapol/czr001
Arbeiter, E., & Toros, K. (2017). Participatory discourse: Engagement in the context of child
PT
protection assessment practices from the perspectives of child protection workers, parents
CE
and children. Children and Youth Services Review, 74, 17–27.
doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.01.020
AC
Ardoin, N. M., Castrechini, S., & Hofstedt, M. K. (2014). Youth–community–university
partnerships and sense of place: Two case studies of youth participatory action research.
Children’s Geographies, 12(4), 479–496. doi:10.1080/14733285.2013.827872
Begley, A. (2000). The educational self-perception of children with Down Syndrome. In A.
Greig & J. Taylor (Eds.), Researching children's perspectives. (pp. 98-112). Philadelphia:
36
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Open University Press.
Bertozzi, R. (2010). A participatory approach to research with migrant working adolescents.
Migration Letters, 7(1), 57–67.
Betancourt, T. S., Frounfelker, R., Mishra, T., Hussein, A., & Falzarano, R. (2015).
Addressing health disparities in the mental health of refugee children and adolescents
T
through community-based participatory research: A study in two communities. American
IP
Journal of Public Health, 105(3), 475–482. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2014.302504
CR
Blazek, M., & Hraňová, P. (2012). Emerging relationships and diverse motivations and benefits
in participatory video with young people. Children’s Geographies, 10(2), 151–168.
doi:10.1080/14733285.2012.667917
US
AN
Bradbury-Jones, C., & Taylor, J. (2015). Engaging with children as co-researchers: challenges,
counter-challenges and solutions. International Journal of Social Research Methodology,

M
18(2), 161–173. doi:10.1080/13645579.2013.864589

ED
Brown, J. (2013). When all the children are left behind: An exploration of fosterage of Owambo
orphans in Namibia, Africa. In D. J. Johnson, D. L. Agbényiga, & R. K. Hitchcock

PT
(Eds.), Vulnerable children: Global challenges in education, health, well-being and

CE
children's rights (pp. 185–202). Springer New York. Retrieved from
http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4614-6780-9_13
AC
Chen, P., Weiss, F. L., & Nicholson, H. J. (2010). Girls study Girls Inc.: Engaging girls in
evaluation through participatory action research. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 46(1-2), 228–37. doi:10.1007/s10464-010-9328-7
Cheney, K. E. (2011). Children as ethnographers: Reflections on the importance of participatory
37
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
research in assessing orphans’ needs. Childhood, 18(2), 166–179.
doi:10.1177/0907568210390054
Chou, F., Kwee, J., Lees, R., Firth, K., Florence, J., Harms, J., … Wilson, S. (2015). Nothing
about us without us! Youth-led solutions to improve high school completion rates.
Educational Action Research, 23(3), 436–459. doi:10.1080/09650792.2015.1013047
T
Chukwudozie, O., Feinstein, C., Jensen, C., OʼKane, C., Pina, S., Skovdal, M., & Smith, R.
IP
(2015). Applying community-based participatory research to better understand and
CR
improve kinship care practices: Insights from the Democratic Republic of Congo,
Nigeria, and Sierra Leone. Family & Community Health, 38(1), 108–119. doi:
10.1097/FCH.0000000000000052
US
AN
Clark, A. (2010). Young children as protagonists and the role of participatory, visual
methods in engaging multiple perspectives. American Journal of Community Psychology,

M
46(1-2), 115–23. doi:10.1007/s10464-010-9332-y

ED
Clark, A. (2011). Breaking methodological boundaries? Exploring visual, participatory methods
with adults and young children. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal,
PT
19(3), 321–330. doi:10.1080/1350293X.2011.597964

CE
Clark, A., Flewitt, R., Hammersley, M., Robb, M., & Open University (Eds.). (2014).
Understanding research with children and young people. London ; Thousand Oaks,
AC
California: SAGE.
Conrad, D. (2015). Education and social innovation: The Youth Uncensored Project--A case
study of youth participatory research and cultural democracy in action. Canadian Journal
of Education, 38(1), 1–25.
38
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Crivello, G., Camfield, L., & Woodhead, M. (2009). How can children tell us about their well-
being? Exploring the potential of participatory research approaches within Young Lives.
Social Indicators Research, 90(1), 51–72. doi:10.1007/s11205-008-9312-x
Dennis Jr., S. F., Gaulocher, S., Carpiano, R. M., & Brown, D. (2009). Participatory photo
mapping (PPM): Exploring an integrated method for health and place research with
T
young people. Health & Place, 15(2), 466–473. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2008.08.004
IP
Dodington, J., Mollen, C., Woodlock, J., Hausman, A., Richmond, T. S., & Fein, J. A. (2012).
CR
Youth and adult perspectives on violence prevention strategies: A community-based
participatory study. Journal of Community Psychology, 40(8), 1022–1031.
doi:10.1002/jcop.21513
US
AN
Fattore, T., Mason, J., & Watson, E. (2009). When children are asked about their well-being:
Towards a framework for guiding policy. Child Indicators Research, 2(1), 57–77.
M
doi:10.1007/s12187-008-9025-3
ED
Flicker, S. (2008). Who benefits from community-based participatory research? A case study of
the Positive Youth Project. Health Education & Behavior, 35(1), 70–86.
PT
doi:10.1177/1090198105285927
CE
Foster-Fishman, P., Nowell, B., Deacon, Z., Nievar, M. A., & McCann, P. (2005). Using
methods that matter: The impact of reflection, dialogue, and voice. American Journal of
AC
Community Psychology, 36(3-4), 275–91. doi:10.1007/s10464-005-8626-y
Garcia, A. P., Minkler, M., Cardenas, Z., Grills, C., & Porter, C. (2014). Engaging
homeless youth in community-based participatory research: A case study from Skid Row,
Los Angeles. Health Promotion Practice, 15(1), 18–27. doi:10.1177/1524839912472904
39
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
García, C. E. R., & Brown, S. (2009). Assessing water use and quality through youth
participatory research in a rural Andean watershed. Journal of Environmental
Management, 90(10), 3040–3047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.04.014
Greene, S., & Hogan, D. (2005). Researching children's experience: Methods and approaches.
Thousand Oaks, London; SAGE.
T
Greig, A., & Taylor, J. (1999). Doing research with children. Thousand Oaks, London; SAGE
IP
Publications.
CR
Hampshire, K., Porter, G., Owusu, S., Mariwah, S., Abane, A., Robson, E., … Bourdillon, M.
(2012). Taking the long view: Temporal considerations in the ethics of children’s
US
research activity and knowledge production. Children’s Geographies, 10(2), 219–232.
AN
doi:10.1080/14733285.2012.667921
Hart, R. A. (1992). Children’s participation: From tokenism to citizenship. Florence, Italy:

M
UNICEF International Child Development Centre.

ED
Haynes, K., & Tanner, T. M. (2015). Empowering young people and strengthening resilience:
youth-centred participatory video as a tool for climate change adaptation and disaster risk
PT
reduction. Children’s Geographies, 13(3), 357–371. doi:10.1080/14733285.2013.848599

CE
Houghton, C. (2015). Young people’s perspectives on participatory ethics: Agency, power and
impact in domestic abuse research and policy-making. Child Abuse Review, 24(4), 235–
AC
248. doi:10.1002/car.2407
Hutzel, K. (2007). Reconstructing a community, reclaiming a playground: A participatory action
research study. Studies in Art Education, 48(3), 299–315.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25475831
40
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Israel, B. A. (Ed.). (2013). Methods for community-based participatory research for health (2nd
ed). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Jacquez, F., Vaughn, L. M., & Wagner, E. (2012). Youth as partners, participants or passive
recipients: A review of children and adolescents in community-based participatory
research (CBPR). American Journal of Community Psychology, 51(1-2), 176–189.
T
doi:10.1007/s10464-012-9533-7
IP
James, A. (2007). Giving voice to children’s voices: Practices and problems, pitfalls and
CR
potentials. American Anthropologist, 109(2), 261–272.
Jones, A. (2004). Involving children and young people as researchers. In S. Fraser, V. Lewis, S.
US
Ding, M. Kellett & C. Robinson (Eds.), Doing research with children and young people
AN
(pp.113-131). London: Sage.
Jones, D., Greenberg, M., Crowley, M. (2015). Early social-emotional functioning and
M
public health: The relationship between kindergarten social competence and future
ED
wellness. American Journal of Public Health, 105(11), 2283-2290.
doi:10.2105/AJPH.2015.302630
PT
Kellett, M. (2010). Small shoes, big steps! Empowering children as active researchers.
CE
American Journal of Community Psychology, 46(1-2), 195–203. doi:10.1007/s10464-
010-9324-y
AC
Kellett, M., Robinson, C., & Burr, R. (2004). Images of childhood. In S. Fraser, V. Lewis, S.
Ding, M. Kellett & C. Robinson (Eds.), Doing research with children and young people
(27-43). London: Sage.
Kemmis, S., & McTaggard, R. (2003). Participatory action research. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S.
41
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of qualitative inquiry (2nd ed, pp. 271–329). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Kennedy, D. (2006). The well of being: Childhood, subjectivity, and education. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Kim, H. (2013). Prosocial behavior among children with and without disabilities: Centering on
T
teacher’s perception on the teacher-child relationship. Retrieved from
IP
http://digitalcommons.uri.edu/hdf_facpubs/15/
CR
Komulainen, S. (2007). The ambiguity of the child’s “voice” in social research. Childhood,
14(1), 11–28. doi:10.1177/0907568207068561
US
Kulbok, P. A., Meszaros, P. S., Bond, D. C., Thatcher, E., Park, E., Kimbrell, M., & Smith-
AN
Gregory, T. (2015). Youths as partners in a community participatory project for
substance use prevention: Family & Community Health, 38(1), 3–11.

M
doi:10.1097/FCH.0000000000000061
ED
Langhout, R. D., & Thomas, E. (2010). Imagining participatory action research in collaboration
with children: An introduction. American Journal of Community Psychology, 46(1-2),

PT
60–66. doi:10.1007/s10464-010-9321-1
CE
Langston, A., Abbott, L., Lewis, V. & Kellett, M. (2004). Early childhood. In S. Fraser, V.
Lewis, S. Ding, M. Kellett & C. Robinson (Eds.), Doing research with children and
AC
young people (pp. 27-43). London: Sage.
Liddell, C. (1998). Conceptualizing “childhood” in developing countries. Psychology &
Developing Societies, 10(1), 35–53. doi:10.1177/097133369801000103
Liebel, M. (2012). Children’s rights from below: cross-cultural perspectives. New York:
42
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Palgrave Macmillan.
Lewis, A., & Lindsay, G. (2000). Researching children's perspectives. Philadelphia;
Buckingham [England]; Open University Press.
Liegghio, M., Nelson, G., & Evans, S. D. (2010). Partnering with children diagnosed with mental
health issues: Contributions of a sociology of childhood perspective to participatory
T
action research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 46(1-2), 84–99.
IP
doi:10.1007/s10464-010-9323-z
CR
Maglajlic, R. A. (2010). “Big organizations” supporting “small involvement”: Lessons from
Bosnia and Herzegovina on enabling community-based participation of children through
US
PAR. American Journal of Community Psychology, 46(1-2), 204–14.
AN
doi:10.1007/s10464-010-9322-0
Malone, K. (2013). “The future lies in our hands”: Children as researchers and environmental
M
change agents in designing a child-friendly neighbourhood. Local Environment, 18(3),

ED
372–395. doi:10.1080/13549839.2012.719020
Mason, J. & Bolzan, N. (2010). Questioning understanding of children’s participation: applying

PT
a cross-cultural lens. In B. Percy-Smith & N. Thomas (Eds.), A handbook of children and

CE
young people’s participation: Perspectives from theory and practice (125-133). New
York: Routledge.
AC
Mason, J., & Hood, S. (2011). Exploring issues of children as actors in social research. Children
and Youth Services Review, 33(4), 490–495. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.05.011
Mathews, J. R., Mathews, T. L., & Mwaja, E. (2010). “Girls Take Charge”: A community-based
participatory research program for adolescent girls. Progress in Community Health
43
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Partnerships, 4(1), 17–24.
McIntyre, A. (2000). Constructing meaning about violence, school, and community:
Participatory action research with urban youth. Urban Review, 32(2), 123. doi:
10.1023/A:1005181731698
McTavish, M., Streelasky, J., & Coles, L. (2012). Listening to children’s voices: Children as
T
participants in research. International Journal of Early Childhood, 44(3), 249–267.
IP
doi:10.1007/s13158-012-0068-8
CR
Merves, M., Rodgers, C. R. R., Silver, E. J., Sclafane, J. H., & Bauman, L. J. (2015). Engaging
and sustaining adolescents in community-based participatory research: Structuring a
US
youth-friendly community-based participatory research environment. Family &
AN
Community Health, 38(1), 22–32. doi:10.1097/FCH.0000000000000057
Minh, A., Patel, S., Bruce-Barrett, C., & OʼCampo, P. (2015). Letting youths choose for
M
themselves: Concept mapping as a participatory approach for program and service

ED
planning. Family & Community Health, 38(1), 33–43.
doi:10.1097/FCH.0000000000000060
PT
Minkler, M., & Wallerstein, N. (2008). Community-based participatory research for health from
CE
process to outcomes. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Retrieved from
http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=588918
AC
Morsillo, J., & Prilleltensky, I. (2007). Social action with youth: Interventions, evaluation, and
psychopolitical validity. Journal of Community Psychology, 35(6), 725–740.
doi:10.1002/jcop.20175
Nelems, M., & Currie, V. (2012). Listening to Iraqi refugee children in Jordan, but then what?
44
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Exploring the impact of participatory research with children. Development in Practice,
22(4), 600–612. doi:10.1080/09614524.2012.672959
Pascal, C., & Bertram, T. (2009). Listening to young citizens: The struggle to make real a
participatory paradigm in research with young children. European Early Childhood
Education Research Journal, 17(2), 249–262. doi:10.1080/13502930902951486
T
Petr, C. G. (2003). Social work with children and their families: Pragmatic foundations. New
IP
York: Oxford University Press, Incorporated. Retrieved from
CR
http://ezproxy.msu.edu:2047/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=tru
e&scope=site&db=e000xna&AN=146900
US
Pollard, E. L., & Lee, P. D. (2003). Child well-being: A systematic review of the literature.
AN
Social Indicators Research, 61(1), 59–78. doi:10.1023/A:1021284215801
Reich, S. M., Kay, J. S., & Lin, G. C. (2015). Nourishing a partnership to improve middle school
M
lunch options: A community-based participatory research project. Family & Community

ED
Health, 38(1), 77–86. doi:10.1097/FCH.0000000000000055
Ren, J. Y., & Langhout, R. D. (2010). A recess evaluation with the players: Taking steps toward
PT
participatory action research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 46(1-2), 124–

CE
38. doi:10.1007/s10464-010-9320-2
Robinson, C., & Kellett, M. (2004). Power. In S. Fraser, V. Lewis, S. Ding, M. Kellett & C.
AC
Robinson (Eds.), Doing research with children and young people (81-97). London: Sage.
Ross, L. (2011). Sustaining youth participation in a long-term tobacco control initiative:
Consideration of a social justice perspective. Youth & Society, 43(2), 681–704.
doi:10.1177/0044118X10366672
45
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Schaffer, H. R. (2006). Key concepts in developmental psychology. London ; Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
Shalowitz, M. U., Isacco, A., Barquin, N., Clark-Kauffman, E., Delger, P., Nelson, D., …
Wagenaar, K. A. (2009). Community-based participatory research: a review of the
literature with strategies for community engagement. Journal of Developmental &
T
Behavioral Pediatrics, 30(4), 350–361.doi: 10.1097/DBP.0b013e3181b0ef14
IP
Siu, K. W. M., & Kwok, J. Y. C. (2004). Collective and democratic creativity: Participatory
CR
research and design. Korean Journal of Thinking & Problem Solving, 14(1), 11–27.
Snider, C. E., Kirst, M., Abubakar, S., Ahmad, F., & Nathens, A. B. (2010). Community-based
US
participatory research: Development of an emergency department–based youth violence
AN
intervention using concept mapping. Academic Emergency Medicine, 17(8), 877–885.
doi:10.1111/j.1553-2712.2010.00810.x
M
Soleimanpour, S., Brindis, C., Geierstanger, S., Kandawalla, S., & Kurlaender, T. (2008).
ED
Incorporating youth-led community participatory research into school health center
programs and policies. Public Health Reports (1974-), 123(6), 709–716.

PT
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25682123
CE
Stewart, S., Riecken, T., Scott, T., Tanaka, M., & Riecken, J. (2008). Expanding health literacy
indigenous youth creating videos. Journal of Health Psychology, 13(2), 180–189.

AC
doi:10.1177/1359105307086709
Torraco, R. J. (2005). Writing integrative literature reviews: Guidelines and examples. Human
Resource Development Review, 4(3), 356–367. doi:10.1177/1534484305278283
United Nations. (1989). United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC),
46
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Geneva: United Nations.
van Staa A., Jedeloo S., Latour J., & Trappenburg M. (2010). Exciting but exhausting:
Experiences with participatory research with chronically ill adolescents. Health
Expectations, 13(1), 95–107 13p. doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00574.x
Wartenweiler, D., & Mansukhani, R. (2015). Participatory action research with Filipino street
T
youth: Their voice and action against corporal punishment. Child Abuse Review, 25(6),
IP
410-423. doi:10.1002/car.2421
CR
Wernick, L. J., Woodford, M. R., & Kulick, A. (2014). LGBTQ youth using participatory action
research and theater to effect change: Moving adult decision-makers to create youth-
US
centered change. Journal of Community Practice, 22(1-2), 47–66.
AN
doi:10.1080/10705422.2014.901996
Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2005). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of
M
Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546–553. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2005.03621.x

ED
Wickenden, M., & Kembhavi-Tam, G. (2014). Ask us too! Doing participatory research with
disabled children in the Global South. Childhood, 21(3), 400–417.

PT
doi:10.1177/0907568214525426
CE
Zeng, E. J., & Silverstein, L. B. (2011). China earthquake relief: Participatory action work with
children. School Psychology International, 32(5), 498–511.

AC
doi:10.1177/0143034311402921
47
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Figure 1. Overview of sampling procedures.
Figure 2. Age of children and youth participated in PAR projects by study
Figure 3. Distribution of research methodologies across the selected studies. *Child-friendly methodologies
Figure 4. Distribution of areas of participation across the selected papers.
T
Figure 5. Distribution of PAR outcomes in the selected papers
IP
Appendix A. Basic Characteristics of the Reviews Studies
CR
Country of Country of
Reference Year Researchers Participants Broad Content Area
Afifi, Makhoul, Hajj, Nakash 2011 Lebanon Lebanon Youth mental health
Alfonso, Bogues, Russo, and
US
Brown 2008 US US Resources for Youth Development
Ardoin, Castrechini, Hofstedt 2014 US US Resources for Youth Development
Bautista, Bertrand, Morrell, Educational inequalities for racial
AN
Scorza & Matthews 2013 US US minorities
Bertozzi 2010 Italy Italy Child Labor
Betancourt, Frounfelker, Mishra,
Hussein & Falzarano 2015 US US Mental Health among refugee children
M
Low Income Neighborhood and its

Blazek & Hraňová 2012 UK,Slovakia Slovakia resources for children
Diabetes Prevention among Indigenous
ED
Brown et al. 2010 US US Youth

Education, health, personal development,
Chen et al. 2010 US US diversity
PT
Chou et al. 2015 Canada Canada Educational achievement by at-risk youth

Nigeria, Kenya, Democratic
Congo, Sierra Republic of
Chukwudozie, Feinstein, Jensen, Leone, Denmark, Congo, Nigeria,
CE
O’Kane, Pina, Skovdal & Smith 2015 UK, France and Sierra Leone Kinship care
Clark 2011 UK UK Learning spaces
Conrad 2015 Canada Canada Drug addition, youth at risk
AC
Dennis, Gaulocher, Carpiano &

Brown 2008 Canada & US US Neighborhood safety and health
Dodington, Mollen, Woodlock,
Hausman, Richmond & Fein 2012 US US Youth Violence
Flicker 2008 Canada Canada HIV among youth population
Foster-Fishman, Law, Lichty & Children's life goals and resources for
Aoun 2010 US US achieving them
Columbia &
Garcia & Brown 2009 Canada Columbia Environment
Youth Issues within neighborhood,
Garcia et al. 2014 US US education and criminal justice
48
ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT
Hampshire, Porter, Owusu,

Mariwah, Abane, Robson, UK, Malawi,
Munthali, Mashiri, Maponya & Ghana, South Ghana, Malawi
Bourdillon 2012 Africa and South Africa Mobility constraints in the community
Haynes & Tanner 2015 Australia, UK The Philippines Disaster Management
Houghton 2015 UK UK Domestic Violence
Neighborhood safety, crime, and
Hutzel 2007 US US resources
Kellett 2010 UK UK Transportation
Kulbok, Meszaros, Bond,
Thatcher, Park, Kimbrell &
T
Smith-Gregory 2015 US US Rural youth substance use
IP
Bosnia & Bosnia &
Maglajlic 2004 Herzegovina Herzegovina HIV & STI prevention, Substance Use
Malone 2013 Australia Australia Environmental planning
CR
Mathews, Mathews & Mwaja 2010 US US Health Disparities
McIntyre 2000 US US Poverty, community violence
Merves, Rodgers, Silver, Sclafane
US
& Bauman 2015 US US Health Disparities
Minh, Patel, Bruce-Barrett &
O’Campo 2015 Canada Canada Resources for Youth Development
AN
Morsillo & Prilleltensky 2007 US, Australia US, Australia Resources for Youth Development
Nelems and Currie 2012 US Iraq and Jordan Refugee
Reich, Key & Lin 2015 US US Food
M
Ren & Langhout 2010 US US Recess/School Environment

Ross 2011 US US Tobacco Control
Comprehensive social service for
ED
Siu & Kwok 2004 Hong-Kong Hong-Kong children

Snider et al. 2010 Canada Canada Youth Violence Prevention
Soleimanpour, Brindis,
Geierstanger, Kandawalla &
PT
Kurlaender 2008 US US School health policies

Stewards et al. 2008 Canada Canada Indigenous health and health literacy
van Staa et al. 2009 Netherlands Netherlands Hospital friendliness to adolescence
CE
Wartenweiler & Mansukhani 2015 Phillipinnes Phillipinnes Corporal Punishment

Wernick et al. 2014 US US LJBTQ youth
AC
Wickenden & Kembhavi-Tam 2014 UK India & Sri Lanka Inclusion of children with disabilities
Zeng & Silverstein 2011 US China Disaster Management
49

Accepted Manuscript: Children and Youth Services Review

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Accepted Manuscript: Children and Youth Services Review

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Accepted Manuscript

Participatory action research (PAR) with children and youth: An

Daria P. Shamrova, Cristy E. Cummings

Participatory Action Research (PAR) with Children and Youth:

methodological choices and depth of children’s involvement.

process of the analysis of the data.

concept of participatory action research (PAR). Thus, oversimplification of children’s

challenges of involving very young participants, providing meaningful participation

Participation of children in research is a big part of this challenge, which is simultaneously

with children and youth.

Child participation is defined as the process of sharing decision-making and participation

which democracies should be measured” (Hart, 1992). Children’s participation in decision-

with their participation in legal proceedings or medical decision-making (Alderson, 2010).

research (PAR) is a response of the academic community to ensuring the implementation of

Due to the increasing emphasis on children’s rights, children’s participation in social

processes on various levels (Cheney, 2011).

Regarding general children’s participation, Hart (1992) developed the ladder of

criteria based on researchers’ self-report description of the participation process.

2.2 What is PAR with children and youth?

is a transformational perspective which is a part of a continuum of participatory research

approaches in which power is redistributed between researchers and participants. In addition,

post-constructivist epistemological orientation that highlights the importance of subjective

experiences in knowledge construction (Minkler & Wallerstein, 2010). Thus, a variety of

techniques) (Clark, 2010; Langhout & Thomas, 2010).

Scholars still need to achieve an agreement around conceptual differences in participatory

approaches, some of which are community-based participatory research, participatory action

research, participatory research, collaborative research, community-centered research, and others

described in the article.

PAR (Jacquez, Vaughn & Wagner, 2013). As a result, oversimplification of children’s

2.3 Theoretical Underpinnings of PAR with Children and Youth

may be involved in research design, data collection, interpretation of findings, as well as

ethical (Adu-Gyamfi, 2013; Pascal & Bertram, 2014).

in his discussion of assessment of youth participation, also focuses on three levels of

community changes within a cultural contexts).

2.4 Current Study

3.1. Review Methodology

An integrative review is a type of literature review designed to provide an opportunity to

synthesize knowledge produced by multiple methodologies and sampling strategies which

multiple research methodologies. Integrative review includes 5 steps: problem identification,

the issue of meaningful children’s participation in research processes. Second, comprehensive

3.2.Search and Sampling Strategy

Science. Search keywords were “ participatory action research,” “participatory research,”

“community-based participatory research,” “children,” “youth,” “teenagers,” “adolescents.”

exclusion criteria are:

(1) Papers selected to be included in the review incorporate discussion of the

research or the answer to the research questions) for children themselves,

not include the discussion on how it affected students, schools or communities,

methodology (e.g. consultation with stakeholders) utilized, but only included

adults in those conversations.

3.3. Data Extraction

3.4. Data Analysis

established at the level of 94% agreement.

3.5. Description of the Papers

publication venues for the sampled papers.

Authors of the selected papers belonged to a number of fields. Twenty-nine percent (n =

authors came from diverse backgrounds: practitioners, independent researchers, an

anthropologist, a environmental scientist, and representatives from architecture/urban planning

manuscripts. None of the authors were identified as children or youth.

violence and safety (11%; n=5), and education (11%: n=5).

4.3. Level of Children’s Engagement

Themes: PAR Outcomes for Children and Youth

Figure 5. Distribution of PAR outcomes in the selected papers (separate file)