Stories of Action: A Comparative Narrative Analysis of Three Student Voice Teams

• In Event: AERA Roundtable Session Saturday 5:10 pm Four Seasons Ballroom 1
  In Roundtable Session: Critical Consciousness and Political Efficacy: Impacts of Action Civics and Ethnic Studies on Youth Activism (Table 1)

Abstract

Objective
This paper seeks to provide research-based findings that illuminate what the Colorado site does well in terms of sociopolitical development and some gaps or growth areas. Strengths include notable growth in sociopolitical action and efficacy. Research also points to gaps in critical consciousness raising.
Perspective
Sociopolitical development is the process by which people: develop knowledge of social inequality and systems of oppression; develop efficacy in engaging in action; and take action to transform their sociopolitical reality (Hope & Bañales, 2019; Kirshner et al., 2015). This process is both fluid and recursive and involves a combination of critical reflection, opportunities to expand efficacy, and engaging in action (Diemer & Hsieh, 2008; Zion et al., 2015). Despite the acknowledgement of these three processes, it seems there is a dichotomy in practice. With youth development organizations often focusing on consciousness raising (Watts & Hipolito-Delgado, 2015) and activist/organizing groups emphasizing training for action. In this paper we use an SPD framework to understand the interplay between consciousness raising and engagement in action in three youth voice groups.
Methods
Through narrative inquiry studies, we study the lived experiences of individuals as told by those who lived the events (Ollerenshaw & Creswell, 2002). Narrative inquiry is used in this session as the approach adds authority and validity to the voice of the participant (Clandinin & Connelly, 1990)—something that educational systems typically deny students. Another reason for using narrative was to compare the stories of three groups of students to understand how participants developed consciousness and engaged in sociopolitical action. More specifically, attempting to understand how these two constructs informed each other in their student voice work.
Results
Youth who participate in student voice in Colorado have shown growth in and a link between sociopolitical leadership, efficacy, and action. Some gaps have been reported in ethnic identity and critical consciousness. The three cases spotlight students addressing different social problems and, as a result, the varying sociopolitical development that occurred. Some jumped into action without properly developing their critical understanding of the issue. Others spent too much time thinking, leaving not enough time to act. While another group of students struggled to connect their critical understandings in actionable ways. Despite these struggles, narrative analysis still revealed important sociopolitical development gains.
Significance
SPD tends to be measured in quantitative ways; qualitative research may help to better understand SPD strengths and areas of growth for the program. Applying SPD outcomes to action civics programming is fruitful, acting as a sort of dynamic assessment for dynamic programming. Specific SPD strengths may be influenced by the values, agendas, needs, and focus of the program. In other words, it makes sense that an action civics program would show more growth in action while an ethnic studies program may show more growth in critical consciousness. SPD is not so much a linear process, but, rather, a mix of learnings and skills that tend to be different based on context. This session leans into the messy mix of SPD.

Authors

• Dane Stickney, University of Colorado - Denver

• Carlos P. Hipolito-Delgado, University of Colorado - Denver

• Beatriz Salazar, University of Colorado - Boulder