Ressources numériques en sciences humaines et sociales OpenEdition Nos plateformes OpenEdition Books OpenEdition Journals Hypothèses Calenda Bibliothèques OpenEdition Freemium Suivez-nous

“Textured Realities” and Mixed Methodologies in Practice-Led Research: Lessons Learned from Critical Youth Studies

Taylor Still, PhD student in Foreign Languages and Literatures, Université Rennes 2


Abstract

This article assesses the role of mixed or ad-hoc methods when working with youth groups in the context of practice-led research. It relies on the field of critical youth studies by asking how best to incorporate young participants in qualitative research, by carrying out such research with and not on young publics. It also draws on concrete examples from a recent practical case study across France and Ireland in order to illustrate some of the positive outcomes of using mixed research methods with youth groups.


Carrying out participatory research with diverse publics (whether they are human or non-human) involves a number of ethical questions. These might involve the participant’s physical safety, which is often addressed by carrying out a risk assessment and implementing various precautions. Or, they might have to do with a participant’s psychological or emotional well-being which might become endangered, depending on the research topic. Alternatively, they may involve addressing the wider framework at hand, such as the power dynamics between the researcher and their participants – referred to occasionally as the ‘researched 1’.

In both quantitative and qualitative practices, the research participant is traditionally perceived as the subject – to be assessed, examined, quizzed, investigated. This involves a procedure of obtaining consent for participation, and ascertaining that the individual is fully aware of the process and agrees to take part in this novel contribution to science. Alongside this, one is very quick to portray the researcher as the expert, the holder of knowledge; or the educator, in some cases. The respective levels of agency at play here are fixed and distinct: the researcher remains in control of their experiments, and the ‘researched’ in turn feeds information back to the researcher, which becomes data. The researcher experiments upon their participants, who – although often larger in number than the researcher and their team – are increasingly anonymised, and given little (if any) credit for their input afterwards. What happens if we wish to engage the participants on a higher level, so they too can actively become researchers in their own right? How do we attribute our participants more power and agency in research? How might we secure more meaningful engagement on their part? 

Such questions resonate particularly with those of us who engage with young publics in our research. The long-standing dichotomy of researcher-vs.-participant is reinforced when age difference is also at play. How confident can we be of a participant’s genuine and thorough understanding of their engagement in the research process – have they fully grasped what they have signed up for? In the case of minors, parental permission is not only crucial but is in fact obligatory.

It is therefore essential to consider how we might carry out social research 2 with and not on youth participants, allowing them in turn to have more agency and more meaningful engagement in research. The first part of this article offers a brief outline of selected mixed research methodologies which aim to dismantle the current imbalanced power dynamics between the researcher and youth participants. The second part draws on work from scholars in the field of critical youth studies, addressing how ad-hoc or mixed research methodologies can represent the lived reality of youth experiences more accurately. Finally, we illustrate the reality of using such mixed methods in a Franco-Irish case study project which took place from 2021-24.

Youth as passive subjects 

With roots in sociology, psychology, and political science, critical youth studies is an interdisciplinary field seeking to “broaden psychological interpretations of youth by making a distinction between the lives of young people and the way people are categorised and represented in social discourses, cultural practices and policies 3”. Sociologist Andy Furlong noted that in the 1990s and early 2000s, most youth research was linked to policy development, focusing largely on crime and youth (sub-)cultures 4. From the vantage point of sociology, it seems natural that youth have long remained firmly rooted in their roles as more passive research subjects. Research methodologies used on and around them imply little active participation and limited agency on their part. This vision begins to shift, however, in practice-led, practice-based and participatory research 5, and particularly through employing qualitative research methods. 

Education scholars Leanne Taylor and Susan Tilley explore this shift in their article “Qualitative Methods and Respectful Praxis: Researching with Youth 6” (2018). They state that many qualitative researchers working with youth have, in recent years, sought to increasingly distance their work from the “historical paradigm of adult researchers doing research on youth”, instead opting for methods that “move youth from the side-lines (…) to greater involvement in the research process 7”. Researchers are seeking to offer young publics more central, active roles in research, by giving them a greater platform to sufficiently express and convey their own lived experiences. This is achieved by re-configuring the types of methodologies used; better adapting them to participants’ age, abilities and interests, among other things. As we tap in to more equal engagement for both parties (researcher and participants), the research swings from being carried out on to with its participants, and takes on a newfound collaborative dimension.

Likewise, Taylor and Tilley remark how researchers who push to move youth from the research side-lines to the centre actually hold an ultimate goal of “better[ing] the experiences and lives of the youth involved 8”. This also connotes an element of social engagement on behalf of the researcher, and reflects a willingness to thoroughly and accurately portray youth experiences, not just through pure representation, but equally with active participation. The question lies in how best to do this, and which particular research methods or frameworks can facilitate doing so. As Taylor and Tilley debate on the strengths and drawbacks of various research methods, they point out that qualitative research methods –when used within an interpretivist paradigm especially – are indeed best suited to research “focused on understanding youths’ lives and experiences 9”.

Representing “textured realities”

Most basic methods in qualitative research qualify as traditional, whereby it is mostly the researcher who “designs the study, sets the research focus and generates the questions 10”. This includes, for instance, observation of participants, focus group discussions, interviews, and questionnaires. Taylor and Tilley argue however that these traditional methods, when used alone, fall short of capturing the full complexity of youth actions and narrative extent of experiences. Shawn Ginwright, researcher in youth development, advocates for the importance of trying to “capture the mosaic of experiences and textured realities of young people’s lives 11”. Ginwright’s very visual metaphor of textured realities evokes different layers of perspective or experience within a young person’s life – such as their individual experiences with schooling, or their home life; as well as their relationships with their peers or even with politics – with no two lives really ever being the same. Taylor and Tilley compare this to simply representing youth as “having static lives and distorted behaviours 12”–which results not only in a generic and inaccurate portrayal, but also in one with little active participation or meaningful engagement from the youth themselves. In bringing participants to the centre of our research process, would we not also be aligning them with a more faithful and accurate snapshot of these “mosaic(s) of experiences and textured realities 13”?

Orla McGarry, an Irish researcher in youth agency, agrees on this need for more accuracy in depiction of youth in practice-led research. She warns us, however, that participatory methods – typically “associated with authenticity and empowerment 14” – can sometimes actually further “obscure the complex nature of youth experience 15”, and that this must be kept in mind during research design. In a similar vein, sociologist and youth studies scholars Claire McCartan, Dirk Schubotz and Jonathan Murphy also note how these participatory methods are often “positioned by many as a democratic paradigm of qualitative inquiry 16”, but remain nevertheless “fraught with a range of relationships that require negotiation 17”. Such shifting relationships indeed demand constant negotiation, often in relation to the power dynamics between the researcher and the ‘researched’. This is also arguably a trap into which often we fall, distracted by paying excessive attention to the researcher-participant relationship, and forgetting what should be our real focus: correctly and accurately documenting the lives of the youth participants.

In a bid to capture what Ginwright calls “textured realities”, numerous alternative other qualitative methods can be used, such as visual / digital methods, youth-constructed data, and action-oriented methods. Participatory visual / digital methods consist of using a range of artistic mediums to collect or analyse information about participants, such as asking them directly to document a given aspect of their life through creating a photo journal or video blog. Vitality in these methods is important and allows a more meaningful experience for the youth, who (along with the researcher) can engage more deeply in the research process 18, since they begin to put pieces of themselves into it. This method tends to come quite naturally to adolescents, as they are already often familiar with documenting their daily lives through social media via smartphones : channels such as Instagram, Snapchat and TikTok are especially popular. Such methods prove useful in international projects too, where questions of intercultural communication may be broached; visual methods in particular can serve as solutions when linguistic barriers might occasionally arise between cross-cultural participant groups.

Action-oriented methods are also well-adapted to research with youth: Taylor and Tilley define them as physically-focused methods seeking to “engage youth in ways that involve their participation in some form of [physical] ‘action’, such as walking and talking about their surroundings, drama activities, small group activities or games 19”. In creative research, for instance, action-oriented methods prove especially valuable since participants can physically create something material, such as an artwork, text or script. The promise of a tangible dimension can also be key to obtaining the youth’s interest in and consent to participation in the research: why would they take part in something seen as rather abstract, if they did not have some sort of tangible and material output from it to keep for themselves afterwards? 

The concrete, tactile action of making and creating texts, videos, images or drama performances, for example, contributes strongly to the young person’s responsibility, as well as a sense of belonging (when achieved in a collaborative group setting). It places the young people at the centre of the research process, where they have a greater deal of both input (of expertise) and control (of the output). In this sense, action-oriented methods are also to be perceived as youth-constructed data, built directly by the youth themselves.

Case study: a Franco-Irish project

The aforementioned examples of methods were experimented during a recent international PhD research project entitled Connexions. It involved a cross-cultural exchange between 2 groups of teenage participants (aged 13-16) based in the urban areas of Rennes (Brittany, France) and Cork (County Cork, Ireland), consisting of a series of creative experiments held both virtually (via an online video platform) and in-person (in the respective cities). Each group was composed of approximately 20-35 individuals, varying in exact numbers throughout the duration of the full project (Aug 2021 – Aug 2024), and all of whom took part on a voluntary basis throughout the school year.

Connexions sought to explore how best to build common ground between international youth groups, using creative media such as theatre, creative writing and performance. It aimed to implement a framework for creative ‘commoning’: defined more broadly here as a common creative practice shared between two distinct groups. Art historian Estelle Zhong Mengual defines commoning in an artistic context as being “based on a system of participation which transforms the creation of an artwork from a practice usually reserved for the individual […] into a collective process 20”.Connexions strove to identify common points between the Franco-Irish groups and foster a space for creative commoning to take place across borders: for instance, by collectively writing short fictional texts or poems, or by devising small pieces of theatre, all based on themes which spoke collectively to both groups.

The Rennes-based group consisted of 35 students from a Baccalauréat Français International class of Seconde at the inner-city Victor & Hélène Basch High School in Villejean, Rennes. The Cork-based group consisted of 20 members of the Pre-Seniors group from Activate Youth Theatre, belonging to Graffiti Theatre Company 21, in Blackpool, Cork City. The group consists of adolescents aged 13-15 from a mix of public and private schools in County Cork (inner-city, suburban and rural), who are fee-paying members of the extra-curricular youth theatre group. The day-to-day running of Connexions was enabled by a team of 6 adult facilitators who worked with the researcher and youth groups in a series of practical workshops.

The fieldwork in Connexions consisted of analysing how the groups navigated collective creations – from a cross-cultural perspective – and their responses to the proposed collaborative exercises. This analysis was part of a larger research objective, which sought to bring literature outside of the traditional classroom space, into more open public spaces; for increased visibilty and empowerment for youth voices in French and Irish societies. From the vantage point of experimental and collective creation, the project hoped to propose an alternative route to the more representational approaches to literature that are currently found in the French and Irish secondary school systems today (such as extended essays or commentaires de texte, for instance).

The school yard at Lycée Victor et Hélène Basch, Rennes, France, 2024.
Photo credit: T. Still
The studio space at Graffiti Theatre Company, Cork, Ireland, 2023.
Photo credit: T. Still

As fieldwork began, it quickly became clear that certain research methods would be less appropriate than anticipated, and thus were swiftly altered. For example: a non-participatory, passive and neutral observation by the researcher had been planned for the in-person workshop sessions in both Rennes and Cork. This turned out, however, to feel rather forced and made both the facilitators and youth groups feel ‘watched’ and somewhat scrutinised. Perhaps unknowingly, the youth groups were sticking to their traditional role as the ‘researched’: remaining very much on the side-lines, despite being the central focus of observation. A new strategy was clearly needed and it was decided that partial-participation 22 during sessions of observation would be better suited. This entails the researcher partly observing (taking mental or written notes), and partly participating in the workshop itself (i.e. working with students in a given exercise). Participants were visibly more at ease and the observer better integrated into the group, despite status as an adult researcher. Witnessing the adult researcher also take part in these action-based methods in workshops appeared to slowly knock down barriers of both status and age between the researcher and the ‘researched’. Spending time talking with participants before, during and after workshops, within a more informal framework, also helped to re-frame the research process as a whole for young publics.

Fieldwork for Connexions with the French youth group in Cork, Ireland, 2024.
Photo credit: T. Still

In Connexions, partial-participation opened up increased accessibility to the researcher – allowing the youth to ask more informal questions about the research and what would come of it afterwards. By stepping closer to the centre of the process, they were able to make comments and suggestions directly to the researcher, rather than remaining on the side-lines. And although using action-oriented methods helped to shift the researcher-participant power dynamics, it is worth noting that this balance was achieved through trial-and-error – the importance of which must not be neglected. The research design was constantly reviewed and methods re-adapted according to field realities, as part of an ongoing, evolving palette of research methods.

To conclude, it is clear that there is no instant or easy solution to obtaining more active participation from youth in research. Trial-and-error is an essential step in identifying and securing the most apt methods for more meaningful youth engagement. A palette of mixed methodologies, both traditional and more youth-focused, are key in facilitating the shift of young participants from research side-lines to its centre, as Taylor and Tilley had duly noted. Ginwright is also right to underline the importance of attempting to accurately portray the mosaic of youth experiences when working with youth groups. We should take note of his insistence on the need to develop better methods to portray the textured realities of young publics in science, and work with, not on them.


Bibliography

BRADLEY, Matt. CAHILL, Caitlin. QUIJADA CERECER, David Alberto. “Toward a Critical Youth Policy Praxis: Critical Youth Studies and Participatory Action Research”, Theory into Practice, Vol. 52 (3), Educational Policy and Youth in the 21st Century, 2013, p.216-223.

BRYMAN, Alan. “Qualitative Research: Ethnography and Participant Observation”, Social Research Methods. 5th edition, New York, Oxford University Press, 2016.

FITZGIBBON, Emilie. Graffiti Theatre Company, CorkIrelandwww.graffiti.ie/, 2024. Accessed 27 February 2024.

FURLONG, Andy. Youth Studies: An Introduction. New York, Routledge, 2013.

GINWRIGHT, Shawn. “Collective Radical Imagination: Youth Participatory Action Research and the Art of Emancipatory Knowledge”, Revolutionizing Education: Youth Participatory Action Research in Motion. Edited by Julio Cammarota & Michelle Fine, New York, Routledge, 2008, p.13-22.

MCCARTAN, Claire. SCHUBOTZ, Dirk. MURPHY, Jonathan. “The Self-Conscious Researcher – Post-Modern Perspectives of Participatory Research with Young People”, Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 13 (1), 2012.

MCGARRY, Orla. “Repositioning the Research Encounter: Exploring Power Dynamics and Positionality in Youth Research”, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, Vol. 19 (3), 2015, p.339-354, www.dx.doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2015.1011821. Accessed 4 May 2024. 

TAYLOR, Leanne. TILLEY, Susan. “Qualitative Methods and Respectful Praxis: Researching with Youth”, The Qualitative Report, Vol. 23 (9), 2018, p.2184-2204, www.doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2018.3482. Accessed 12 May 2024.

ZHONG MENGUAL, Estelle. L’art en commun : réinventer les formes du collectif en contexte démocratique, Dijon, Les Presses du Réel, 2020.


Notes:

1 Term used by Belfast-based sociology researchers Claire McCartan, Dirk Schubotz and Jonathan Murphy in their article entitled “The Self-Conscious Researcher – Post-Modern Perspectives of Participatory Research with Young People” in Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 13 (1), 2012.

2 The term refers here to any research involving human participants.

3 BRADLEY, Matt. CAHILL, Caitlin. QUIJADA CERECER, David Alberto. “Toward a Critical Youth Policy Praxis: Critical Youth Studies and Participatory Action Research”, Theory into Practice, Vol. 52 (3), Educational Policy and Youth in the 21st Century, 2013, p. 217.

4 FURLONG, Andy. Youth Studies: An Introduction. New York, Routledge, 2013, p. 4.

5 In Francophone regions, ‘practice-based research’ is typically translated as recherche-création, in which an artistic creation is both central to and forms part of the research itself. ‘Practice-led research’ translates as recherche-action, where the research is rooted in taking action on an issue that has been identified in a practical context. The latter is also closely linked to ‘participatory research’, which calls on collaboration and participation with members of the communities which are directly concerned by the research outputs. 

6 TAYLOR, Leanne. TILLEY, Susan. “Qualitative Methods and Respectful Praxis: Researching with Youth”, The Qualitative Report, Vol. 23 (9), 2018, p. 2184-2204. 

7 TAYLOR, Leanne. TILLEY, Susan. “Qualitative Methods and Respectful Praxis: Researching with Youth”, The Qualitative Report, Vol. 23 (9), 2018, p. 2184.

8 Ibid, p.2188.

9 Ibid, p.2188.

10 Ibid, p.2188.

11 GINWRIGHT, Shawn. “Collective Radical Imagination: Youth Participatory Action Research and the Art of Emancipatory Knowledge”, Revolutionizing Education: Youth Participatory Action Research in Motion. Edited by Julio Cammarota & Michelle Fine, New York, Routledge, 2008, p. 14.

12 TAYLOR, Leanne. TILLEY, Susan. “Qualitative Methods and Respectful Praxis: Researching with Youth”, The Qualitative Report, Vol. 23 (9), 2018, p. 2186.

13 GINWRIGHT, Shawn. “Collective Radical Imagination: Youth Participatory Action Research and the Art of Emancipatory Knowledge”, Revolutionizing Education: Youth Participatory Action Research in Motion. Edited by Julio Cammarota & Michelle Fine, New York, Routledge, 2008, p. 14.

14 MCGARRY, Orla. “Repositioning the Research Encounter: Exploring Power Dynamics and Positionality in Youth Research”, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, Vol. 19 (3), 2015, p. 339.

15 Ibid, p. 339.

16 MCCARTAN, Claire. SCHUBOTZ, Dirk. MURPHY, Jonathan. “The Self-Conscious Researcher – Post-Modern Perspectives of Participatory Research with Young People”, Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung / Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 13 (1), 2012.

17 Ibid.

18 TAYLOR, Leanne. TILLEY, Susan. “Qualitative Methods and Respectful Praxis: Researching with Youth”, The Qualitative Report, Vol. 23 (9), 2018, p. 2189.

19Ibid, p.2190.

20 ZHONG MENGUAL, Estelle. L’art en commun : réinventer les formes du collectif en contexte démocratique, Dijon, Les Presses du Réel, 2020, p. 12.

21 FITZGIBBON, Emilie. Graffiti Theatre Company, CorkIrelandwww.graffiti.ie/, 2024. Accessed 27 February 2024.

22 BRYMAN, Alan. “Qualitative Research: Ethnography and Participant Observation”, Social Research Methods. 5th edition, New York, Oxford University Press, 2016, p. 436.


OpenEdition vous propose de citer ce billet de la manière suivante :
admincaps (7 juillet 2024). “Textured Realities” and Mixed Methodologies in Practice-Led Research: Lessons Learned from Critical Youth Studies. Creative approaches to public space. Consulté le 8 novembre 2024 à l’adresse https://caps.hypotheses.org/306


Laisser un commentaire

Votre adresse e-mail ne sera pas publiée. Les champs obligatoires sont indiqués avec *

Ce site utilise Akismet pour réduire les indésirables. En savoir plus sur comment les données de vos commentaires sont utilisées.