Supportive community contexts are critical to positive youth development. Out-of-school time (OST) programs serve as supportive community contexts, and participation in OST programs is associated with a host of positive outcomes for youth. Cultural centers, such as museums, have been identified as potentially supportive community contexts for youth. Still, museums have been mostly absent in the broader research discussion of the role of community-based OST programs in promoting positive youth development. The current article presents a qualitative, single-case study of 37 youth between the ages of 13 and 18, the majority of whom identified with racial/ethnic identity groups traditionally underrepresented in OST program participation, in which we examined youths’ perspectives of the features of a museum-based, science-focused, youth development program that they found to be particularly supportive. Five themes emerged, including (a) the program structure, (b) meaningful opportunities and experiences offered by the program, (c) relationships with staff, (d) a positive peer culture, and (e) sense of belonging. The results provide detailed insight into how cultural centers, such as museums, can serve as supportive community contexts for youth development.
AdamsJ. D.GuptaP.CotumaccioA. (2014). Long term participants. A museum program enhances girls’ STEM interest, motivation, and persistence. Afterschool Matters, 20, 13–20.
2.
AkivaT.CortinaK. S.EcclesJ. S.SmithC. (2013). Youth belonging and cognitive engagement in organized activities: A large-scale field study. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 34(5), 208–218.
3.
AkivaT.PetrokubiJ. (2016). Growing with youth: A lifewide and lifelong perspective on youth-adult partnership in youth programs. Children and Youth Services Review, 69, 248–258.
4.
Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs. (2013). Adolescent development.
BartonA. C.TanE.RivetA. (2008). Creating hybrid spaces for engaging school science among urban middle school girls. American Education Research Journal, 45(1), 68–103.
7.
BeiswengerK. L.GrolnickW. S. (2010). Interpersonal and intrapersonal factors associated with autonomous motivation in adolescents’ after-school activities. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 30(3), 369–394.
8.
BensonP. L.ScalesP. C.HamiltonS. F.SesmaA.Jr. (2006). Positive youth development: Theory, research, and applications. In DamonW.LernerR. (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (pp. 894–941). Wiley.
9.
BensonP. L.ScalesP. C.SyvertsenA. K. (2011). The contribution of the developmental assets framework to positive youth development theory and practice. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 41, 197–230.
10.
BlythD. A. (2017). Foreword. In MaloneH. J.DonahueT. (Eds.), The growing out-of-school-time field: Past, present, and future (pp. xv–xvii). Information Age Publishing, Inc.
11.
BourkeR.MacDonaldJ. (2018). Creating a space for student voice in an educational evaluation. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 41(2), 156–168.
12.
BuehlerK.SánchezB.VaclavikD.RodriguezE.GrayT. (2020). Rules of disengagement: Negative relationships and interactions between adults and youth. Youth & Society, 52(6), 1033–1056.
13.
CharmazK. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. A practical guide through qualitative analysis. SAGE.
14.
ColeS. (2012). The development of science identity: An evaluation of youth development programs at the Museum of Science and Industry, Chicago [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Loyola University Chicago.
15.
Cook-SatherA. (2018). Tracing the evolution of student voice in educational research. In BourkeR.LoveridgeJ. (Eds.), Radical collegiality through student voice (pp. 17–38). Springer.
16.
CreswellJ. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design. Choosing among five approaches. SAGE.
17.
DanielsR. B. (2016). Teen programs in twenty-first century art museums: A critical analysis of nine American programs [Doctoral dissertation]. The University of Texas at Dallas.
18.
DareL.NowickiE. (2019). Engaging children and youth in research and evaluation using group concept mapping. Evaluation and Program Planning, 76, Article 101680.
19.
DawesN. P.LarsonR. (2011). How youth get engaged: Grounded-theory research on motivational development in organized youth programs. Developmental Psychology, 47(1), 259–269.
20.
DawsonE. (2014). “Not designed for us”: How science museums and science centers socially exclude low-income, minority ethnic groups. Science Education, 98(6), 981–1008. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.21133
21.
DeutschN. L.BlythD. A.KelleyJ.TolanP. H.LernerR. M. (2017). Let’s talk after-school: The promises and challenges of positive youth development for after-school research, policy, and practice. In DeutschN. L. (Ed.), After-school Programs to Promote Positive Youth Development (pp. 45–68). Springer.
22.
DeutschN. L.JonesJ. N. (2008). “Show me an ounce of respect” respect and authority in adult-youth relationships in after-school programs. Journal of Adolescent Research, 23(6), 667–688.
23.
DurlakJ. A.WeissbergR. P.PachanM. (2010). A meta-analysis of after-school programs that seek to promote personal and social skills in children and adolescents. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45(3–4), 294–309. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9300-6
24.
EcclesJ.GootmanJ. A. (Eds.) (2002). Community programs to promote youth development. National Academies Press.
25.
EscudéM.RiveroE.MontanoJ. (2020). Designing for belonging and becoming in an afterschool tinkering program. Afterschool Matters, 31, 42–50.
26.
FieldsD.EnyedyN. (2013). Picking up the mantle of “expert”: Assigned roles, assertion of identity, and peer recognition within a programming class. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 20(2), 113–131.
27.
FredricksJ. A.SimpkinsS. D. (2012). Promoting positive youth development through organized after-school activities: Taking a closer look at participation of ethnic minority youth. Child Development Perspectives, 6(3), 280–287. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00206.x
28.
GordonM. (2010). Student voice key to unlocking inclusive educational practices. Canadian Journal for New Scholars in Education, 3, 1–11.
29.
GrangerR. C. (2010). Understanding and improving the effectiveness of after-school practice. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45(3–4), 441–446. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9301-5
30.
GriffithA. N.JohnsonH. E. (2019). Building trust: Reflections of adults working with high-school-age youth in project-based programs. Children and Youth Services Review, 96, 439–450.
31.
GriffithA. N.LarsonR. W.JohnsonH. E. (2018). How trust grows: Teenagers’ accounts of forming trust in youth program staff. Qualitative Psychology, 5(3), 340–357.
32.
GroverS. (2004). Why won’t they listen to us? On giving power and voice to children participating in social research. Childhood, 11(1), 81–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568204040186
33.
HalawehM.FidlerC.McRobbS. (2008). Integrating the grounded theory method and case study research methodology within IS research: A possible “road map.”ICIS 2008 Proceedings. Paper 165. http://aisel.aisnet.org/icis2008/165
34.
HallG. S.DeSouzaL.StarrE.WheelerK.SchleyerK. (2020). Sustaining passion: Findings from an exploratory study of the OST program workforce. Journal of Youth Development, 15(1), 9–23.
35.
HirschB. J.MekindaM. A.StawickiJ. (2010). More than attendance: The importance of after-school program quality. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45(3–4), 447–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9310-4
36.
JonesJ. N.DeutschN. L. (2013). Social and identity development in an after-school program: Changing experiences and shifting adolescent needs. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 33(1), 17–43.
37.
LarsonR. W.BrownJ. R. (2007). Emotional development in adolescence: What can be learned from a high school theater program?Child Development, 78(4), 1083–1099.
38.
LauerP. A.AkibaM.WilkersonS. B.ApthorpH. S.SnowD.Martin-GreenM. (2006). Out-of-school-time programs: A meta-analysis of effects for at-risk students. Review of Educational Research, 76, 275–313. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076002275
39.
LincolnY.GubaE. (1986). But is it rigorous? Trustworthiness and authenticity in naturalistic evaluation. New Directions for Program Evaluation, 20, 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/ev.1427
LoydA. B.WilliamsB. V. (2017). The potential for youth programs to promote African American youth’s development of ethnic and racial identity. Child Development Perspectives, 11, 29–38.
42.
LynchB. T. (2011). Custom-made reflective practice: Can museums realise their capabilities in helping others realise theirs?Museum Management and Curatorship, 26(5), 441–458.
43.
MahoneyJ. L.Haley-MizeS. (2017). Knowing better, doing better. Three gaps to fill in the next decade of research on out-of-school time. In MaloneH. J.DonahueT. (Eds.), The growing out-of-school-time field: Past, present, and future (pp. 267–292). Information Age Publishing, Inc.
44.
MahoneyJ. L.LarsonR. W.EcclesJ. S.LordH. (2005). Organized activities as development contexts for children and adolescents. In MahoneyJ. L.LarsonR. W.EcclesJ. S. (Eds.), Organized activities as contexts of development: Extracurricular activities, after-school and community programs (pp. 3–22). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
45.
MaloneH. J. (2017). Introduction. In MaloneH. J.DonahueT. (Eds.), The growing out-of-school-time field: Past, present, and future (pp. 1–9). Information Age Publishing, Inc.
46.
MaloneH. J.DonahueT. (2017). The growing out-of-school-time field: Past, present, and future. Information Age Publishing, Inc.
47.
MasonD.McCarthyC. (2006). ‘The feeling of exclusion’: Young people’s perceptions of art galleries. Museum Management and Curatorship, 21(1), 1–26.
48.
McGivneyV. (1999). Informal learning in the community: A trigger for change and development (Report No. ED439258). National Institute for Adult Continuing Education.
49.
McLeanK. (1999). Museum exhibitions and the dynamics of dialogue. Daedalus, 128(3), 83–108.
50.
MooreN. Y. (2016). The south side: A portrait of Chicago and American segregation. St. Martin’s Press.
51.
MorelliS. A.LeeI. A.ArnnM. E.ZakiJ. (2015). Emotional and instrumental support provision interact to predict well-being. Emotion, 15(4), 484–493. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000084
52.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2019). The Promise of adolescence: Realizing opportunity for all youth. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25388
53.
National Research Council. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. National Academies Press.
54.
PattisonS. A.GontanI.Ramos-MontañezS.MorenoL. (2018). Identity negotiation within peer groups during an informal engineering education program: The central role of leadership-oriented youth. Science Education, 102(5), 978–1006.
55.
PriceC. A.KaresF. K.SegoviaG.LloydA. B. (2018). Staff Matter: Gender differences in STEM career interest development in adolescent youth. Applied Developmental Science, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2017.1398090
56.
RiceF. P.DolginK. G. (2002). The adolescent: Development, relationships, and culture (10th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.
57.
ScalesP. C. (2017). High-quality OST activities and programs: Using the RISE approach (relationships, interest and sparks, empowerment) to promote thriving in youth and their settings. In MaloneH. J.DonahueT. (Eds.), The growing out-of-school-time field: Past, present, and future (pp. 25–43). Information Age Publishing, Inc.
ShahA. M.WylieC.GitomerD.NoamG. (2018). Improving STEM program quality in out-of-school-time: Tool development and validation. Science Education, 102(2), 238–259.
SimpkinsS. D.LiuY.DawesN. P. (2017). 15 years after community programs to promote youth development. In MaloneH. J.DonahueT. (Eds.), The growing out-of-school-time field: Past, present, and future (pp. 13–24). Information Age Publishing, Inc.
ThiryH.ArchieT.Arreola-PenaM.LaursenS. (2017). Linkages between youth diversity and organizational and program characteristics of out-of-school-time science programs: A mixed-methods study. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 7(2), 121–145.
TurnerD. W. (2010). Qualitative interview design: A practical guide for novice investigators. The Qualitative Report, 15(3), 754–760.
68.
VandellD. L.LarsonR. W.MahoneyJ. L.WattsT. W. (2015). Children’s organized activities. In BorsteinM. H.LeventhalT. (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science, vol. 4: Ecological settings and processes in developmental systems (7th ed., pp. 305–344). Wiley.
69.
WeissbergR. P.O’BrienM. U. (2004). What works in school-based social and emotional learning programs for positive youth development. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591(1), 86–97.
70.
WyrickG. (2014). All together now: Teens and museums. Journal of Museum Education, 39(3), 231–235.
71.
YinR. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed.). SAGE.
72.
YohalemN.Wilson-AhlstromA. (2010). Inside the black box: Assessing and improving quality in youth programs. American Journal of Community Psychology, 45(3–4), 350–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-010-9311-3
