Research Meets Pedagogy Meets Action: ‪Untangling Aims and Methods in Classroom-Based Youth Participatory Action Research

• In Event: Sticky Situations and Critical Spaces: ‬ ‪Complicating Research, Policy, and Praxis‬

Abstract

Objectives/Framework

‪Proponents of Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR) describe it in various ways: as a research method that reveals underrepresented knowledge (Guishard, 2009; Tuck, 2009); a pedagogy for teaching students critical inquiry skills (Cammarota & Romero, 2009; Stovall & Delgado, 2009); a vehicle for empowerment through which youth turn marginalizing experiences into strengths and become activists (Rodriguez & Brown, 2009); and a democratic method that levels power imbalances between youth and adults (Torre, 2005; Zeller-Berkman, 2011).

The multifaceted goals of YPAR both entice and challenge the social justice educator. Drawn to YPAR’s promising blend of critical thinking, empowerment and democratization, the method is appealing to those seeking to use education as a means of social change. But the complexities of melding multiple purposes into one approach, particularly amidst the current push for standardization and accountability measures, should not be overlooked. In this study, we attempt to untangle these complexities, both for our own benefit and to inform others seeking to use the approach.

‪Methods/Data Sources

‪During this multi-year project, five public high school teachers and three university professors developed, and 15 teachers piloted, a youth participatory action research curriculum in two different public high schools, one urban and one suburban. The teachers met quarterly with university partners as a professional learning community (PLC). The research team observed 42 classes, interviewed 23 students, and conducted teacher focus groups. Our analysis draws upon transcripts of PLC meetings, interviews and focus groups with teachers and students, classroom observations and participant observer reflections from project-related classrooms and workshops. Using a grounded theory approach, team members read the data individually then merged code lists, ranking codes by frequency (Miles, Huberman, & Saldaña, 2014). These high-frequency codes led to the themes described in this paper.

‪Results

‪This analysis revealed three principal difficulties. First, a conflict between process and action. During implementation, the research aims of YPAR were frequently overtaken by the imperatives and excitement of making presentations and taking direct action. Second, the “schoolification” of the project. As the project met the constraints of the classroom, research came to feel less like authentic inquiry and more like “busywork.” Third, the paradox of being responsible for teaching students while attempting to level hierarchies between youth and adults. Leveling adult-student hierarchies is a complex business within schools which are, by their very nature, settings in which adult mandates usually trump youth interests. All three of these difficulties were related to the conflation of aim and method that is both a strength and drawback of YPAR as pedagogy for classroom use.

‪Significance

‪In light of this year’s conference theme of “The Power of Education Research for Innovation in Practice and Policy,” this study aims to provide research-based clarification of an under-analyzed pedagogical approach. The results of this inquiry will be useful for teachers and researchers interested in using and adapting participatory action research pedagogies to their classrooms, suggesting areas for clarification and facilitating a more careful articulation and separation of the means and ends of classroom-based participatory action research.

Authors

• Beth C. Rubin, Rutgers University

• Jennifer Ayala, Saint Peter's College

• Mayida Zaal, Montclair State University