The aim of this study is to demonstrate the challenges encountered in youth participatory evaluation and how digital technology may assist in overcoming these challenges. The study explores the meaning of youth participatory evaluation and examines the challenges faced in utilizing the approach. We argue that using digital technology can help overcome many challenges of youth participatory evaluations, with the added benefit that such technology may also attract and influence young people to engage more fully with evaluation processes. These findings show that digital technology helps decrease adultism, increase adults’ capacity to engage with youth, and respond to and empower youth. Some practical guidelines and challenges are also discussed.
AbmaTALeyerzapfHLandeweerE (2017) Responsive evaluation in the interference zone between system and lifeworld. American Journal of Evaluation38(4): 507–20.
2.
AkomAShahANakaiA, et al. (2016) Youth participatory action research (YPAR) 2.0: How technological innovation and digital organizing sparked a food revolution in East Oakland. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education29(10): 1287–307.
3.
AndersonAJ (2020) A qualitative systematic review of youth participatory action research implementation in U.S. high schools. American Journal of Community Psychology65(1–2): 242–57.
4.
AnyonYBenderKKennedyH, et al. (2018) A systematic review of youth participatory action research (YPAR) in the United States: Methodologies, youth outcomes, and future directions. Health Education and Behavior45(6): 865–78.
5.
ArnoldMEGagnonR (2020) Positive youth development theory in practice: An update on the 4-H Thriving Model. Journal of Youth Development15(6): 1–23.
6.
ArnoldMEGandyJ (2019) Youth participatory evaluation: Matching 4-H youth experience to program theory. The Journal of Extension57(4): 11.
7.
BauerRHimpsl-GutermannKSankofiM, et al. (2017) Brave new digital tools for action research in education: A beginner’s guide. In: ŞadSEbnerM (eds) Digital Tools for Seamless Learning. Hershey, PA: IGI Global, 42–64.
8.
BellJ (1995) Understanding Adultism: A Major Obstacle to Developing Positive Youth-Adult Relationships. Somerville, MA: YouthBuild.
9.
BettencourtGM (2018) Embracing problems, processes, and contact zones: Using youth participatory action research to challenge adultism. Action Research29: 153–70.
10.
BicenHArnavutA (2015) Determining the effects of technological tool use habits on social lives. Computers in Human Behavior48: 457–62.
11.
Brion-MeiselsGAlterZ (2018) The quandary of youth participatory action research in school settings: A framework for reflecting on the factors that influence purpose and process. Harvard Educational Review88(4): 429–54.
12.
CaminoLZeldinS (2002) From periphery to center: Pathways for youth civic engagement in the day-to-day life of communities. Applied Developmental Science6(4): 213–20.
13.
CaminoLA (2000) Youth-adult partnerships: Entering new territory in community work and research. Applied Developmental Science4(1): 11–20.
14.
CheckowayBRichards-SchusterK (2001) Lifting new voices for socially just communities. Community Youth Development2: 32–7.
15.
CheckowayBRichards-SchusterK (2003) Youth participation in community evaluation research. American Journal of Evaluation24(1): 21–33.
16.
ChenPWeissFLNicholsonHJ (2010) Girls study Girls Inc.: Engaging girls in evaluation through participatory action research. American Journal of Community Psychology46(1–2): 228–37.
17.
ClaroMSalinasACabello-HuttT, et al. (2018) Teaching in a digital environment (TIDE): Defining and measuring teachers’ capacity to develop students’ digital information and communication skills. Computers and Education121: 162–74.
18.
CornwallAJewkesR (1995) What is participatory research?Social Science and Medicine41(12): 1667–76.
19.
CousinsBEarlLM (1992) The case for participatory evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis14(4): 397–418.
DeJongKLoveBJ (2015) Youth oppression as a technology of colonialism: Conceptual frameworks and possibilities for social justice education praxis. Equity and Excellence in Education48(3): 489–508.
22.
Dixon-RománENicholsTPNyame-MensahA (2020) The racializing forces of/in AI educational technologies. Learning, Media and Technology45(3): 236–50.
23.
DoughertyKDAndercheckB (2014) Using Facebook to engage learners in a large introductory course. Teaching Sociology42(2): 95–104.
24.
EllisonNBSteinfieldCLampeC (2007) The benefits of Facebook “friends”: Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication12(4): 1143–68.
25.
EomSBWenHJAshillN (2006) The determinants of students’ perceived learning outcomes and satisfaction in university online education: An empirical investigation. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education4(2): 215–35.
26.
FettermanD (1997) Empowerment evaluation: A response to Patton and Scriven. Evaluation Practice18(3): 253–66.
27.
FinkelEJNortonMIReisHT, et al. (2015) When does familiarity promote versus undermine interpersonal attraction? A proposed integrative model from erstwhile adversaries. Perspectives on Psychological Science10: 3–19.
28.
FinnJLCheckowayB (1998) Young people as competent community builders: A challenge to social work. Social Work43(4): 355–45.
29.
FlickerSMaleyORidgleyA, et al. (2008) E-PAR: Using technology and participatory action research to engage youth in health promotion. Action Research6(3): 285–303.
30.
Foster-FishmanPGLawKMLichtyLF, et al. (2010) Youth ReACT for social change: A method for youth participatory action research. American Journal of Community Psychology46(1–2): 67–83.
31.
FrasquilhoDOzerEJOzerEM, et al. (2018) Dream teens: Adolescents-led participatory project in Portugal in the context of the economic recession. Health Promotion Practice19(1): 51–9.
32.
GegenfurtnerASchmidt-HerthaBLewisP (2020) Digital technologies in training and adult education. International Journal of Training and Development24(1): 1–4.
33.
GibbsLKornbluhMMarinkovicK, et al. (2020) Using technology to scale up youth-led participatory action research: A systematic review. Journal of Adolescent Health67(2): S14–23.
34.
GlassmanM (2020) The internet as a context for participatory action research. Education and Information Technologies25(3): 1891–911.
35.
GongJWrightD (2007) The context of power: Young people as evaluators. American Journal of Evaluation28(3): 327–33.
36.
GrieveRWatkinsonJ (2016) The psychological benefits of being authentic on Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking19(7): 420–5.
37.
HallSF (2019) A conceptual mapping of three anti-adultist approaches to youth work. Journal of Youth Studies23(10): 1–17.
38.
ImlawiJGreggDKarimiJ (2015) Student engagement in course-based social networks: The impact of instructor credibility and use of communication. Computers and Education88: 84–96.
39.
Internet World Stats (2020) World Internet Usage and Population Statistics: 2020 Year Estimates. Available at: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm (accessed 30 October 2020).
40.
JacksonS (2018) Young feminists, feminism and digital media. Feminism and Psychology28: 32–49.
41.
KennedyH (2018) How adults change from facilitating youth participatory action research: Process and outcomes. Children and Youth Services Review94: 298–305.
42.
KimJ (2016) Youth involvement in participatory action research (PAR): Challenges and barriers. Critical Social Work17(1): 38–53.
43.
KohfeldtDChhunLGraceS, et al. (2011) Youth empowerment in context: Exploring tensions in school-based YPAR. American Journal of Community Psychology47(1–2): 28–45.
44.
KoivistoJHamariJ (2019) The rise of motivational information systems: A review of gamification research. International Journal of Information Management45: 191–210.
45.
KornbluhM (2019) Building bridges: Exploring the communication trends and perceived sociopolitical benefits of adolescents engaging in online social justice efforts. Youth and Society51(8): 1104–26.
46.
KornbluhMNealJWOzerEJ (2016) Scaling-up youth-led social justice efforts through an online school-based social network. American Journal of Community Psychology57(3–4): 266–79.
47.
KornbluhMOzerEJAllenCD, et al. (2015) Youth participatory action research as an approach to sociopolitical development and the new academic standards: Considerations for educators. Urban Review47: 868–92.
48.
KrullGDuartJM (2017) Moving to Seamless Learning: A Framework for Learning Using Multiple Devices. In: PowerRAllyMCristolD, et al. (eds) IAmLearning: Mobilizing and Supporting Educator Practice. International Association for Mobile Learning. Available at: https://iamlearning.pressbooks.com/
49.
LarsonRWWalkerKC (2010) Dilemmas of practice: Challenges to program quality encountered by youth program leaders. American Journal of Community Psychology45: 338–49.
50.
LauGNetherlandNHaywoodM (2003) Collaborating on evaluation for youth development. New Directions for Evaluation98: 47–59.
51.
LevordashkaAUtzS (2016) Ambient awareness: From random noise to digital closeness in online social networks. Computers in Human Behavior60: 147–54.
52.
LinRUtzS (2017) Self-disclosure on SNS: Do disclosure intimacy and narrativity influence interpersonal closeness and social attraction?Computers in Human Behavior70: 426–36.
53.
LinRLevordaskaAUtzS (2016) Ambient intimacy on Twitter. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace10(1): 6.
54.
LivingoodWCMonticalvoDBernhardtJM, et al. (2017) Engaging adolescents through participatory and qualitative research methods to develop a digital communication intervention to reduce adolescent obesity. Health Education and Behavior44(4): 570–80.
55.
MalinenS (2015) Understanding user participation in online communities: A systematic literature review of empirical studies. Computers in Human Behavior46: 228–38.
56.
MarksRBSibleySDArbaughJB (2005) A structural equation model of predictors for effective online learning. Journal of Management Education29(4): 531–63.
57.
MarwickAEBoydD (2010) I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media and Society13(1): 114–33.
58.
MiddaughEClarkLSBallardPJ (2017) Digital media, participatory politics, and positive youth development. Pediatrics140: S127–31.
59.
MillerRLCampbellR (2006) Taking stock of empowerment evaluation: An empirical review. American Journal of Evaluation27(3): 296–319.
60.
MillsKABrownA (2021) Immersive virtual reality (VR) for digital media making: Transmediation is key. Learning, Media and Technology47(2): 1–22.
61.
MurphyAFarleyHLaneM, et al. (2014) Mobile learning anytime, anywhere: What are our students doing?Australasian Journal of Information Systems18(3): 331–45.
62.
OrzechKMMoncurWDurrantA, et al. (2016) Opportunities and challenges of the digital lifespan: Views of service providers and citizens in the UK. Information, Communication and Society1: 14–29.
63.
OzerEJWrightD (2012) Beyond school spirit: The effects of youth led participatory action research in two urban high schools. Journal of Research on Adolescence22(2): 267–83.
64.
OzerEJAbraczinskasMVoightA, et al. (2020) Use of research evidence generated by youth: Conceptualization and applications in diverse U.S. K-12 educational settings. American Journal of Community Psychology 66(1–2): 81–93.
65.
PattonMQ (2012) Essentials of Utilization-Focused Evaluation. Washington, DC: SAGE.
66.
PawluczukA (2020) Digital youth inclusion and the big data divide: Examining the Scottish perspective. Internet Policy Review9: 1–18.
67.
PellingELWhiteKM (2009) The theory of planned behavior applied to young people’s use of social networking websites. Cyberpsychology and Behavior12(6): 755–9.
68.
PhillipsGIILindemanPAdamesCN, et al. (2019) Empowerment evaluation: A case study of citywide implementation within an HIV prevention context. American Journal of Evaluation40(3): 318–34.
69.
PhuBGowAJ (2019) Facebook use and its association with subjective happiness and loneliness. Computers in Human Behavior92: 151–9.
70.
Richards-SchusterKElliottSP (2019) A practice matrix for involving young people in evaluation: Possibilities and considerations. American Journal of Evaluation40(4): 533–47.
71.
RossL (2011) Sustaining youth participation in a long-term tobacco control initiative: Consideration of a social justice perspective. Youth and Society43(2): 681–704.
72.
SaboFK (2007) Youth Participatory Evaluation: Strategies for Engaging Young People. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
73.
SainiCAbrahamJ (2019) Implementing Facebook-based instructional approach in pre-service teacher education: An empirical investigation. Computers and Education128: 243–55.
74.
SchwandtTA (2001) A postscript on thinking about dialogue. Evaluation7: 264–76.
75.
ShamrovaDPCummingsCE (2017) 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 Review81: 400–12.
76.
ShroffRHVogelDRCoombesJ (2008) Assessing individual-level factors supporting student intrinsic motivation in online discussions: A qualitative study. Journal of Information Systems Education19(1): 111–25.
77.
ShulhaLMWhitmoreECousinsJB, et al. (2015) Introducing evidence-based principles to guide collaborative approaches to evaluation: Results of an empirical process. American Journal of Evaluation37(2): 1–23.
78.
SosikVSBazarovaNN (2014) Relational maintenance on social network sites: How Facebook communication predicts relational escalation. Computers in Human Behavior35: 124–31.
79.
Soto-AcostaP (2020) COVID-19 pandemic: Shifting digital transformation to a high-speed gear. Information Systems Management37(4): 260–6.
80.
SprecherSTregerSWondraJD (2012) Effects of self-disclosure role on liking, closeness, and other impressions in get-acquainted interactions. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships30(4): 497–514.
81.
StakeRE (1975) Evaluating the Arts in Education: A Responsive Approach. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
82.
StoudtBG (2009) The role of language and discourse in the investigation of privilege: Using participatory action research to discuss theory, develop methodology, and interrupt power. The Urban Review41: 7–28.
83.
ThomasLBriggsPHartA, et al. (2017) Understanding social media and identity work in young people transitioning to university. Computers in Human Behavior76: 541–53.
84.
TraxlerJ (2016) Inclusion in an age of mobility. Research in Learning Technology24: 31372.
85.
ValkenburgPMPeterJSchoutenAP (2006) Friend networking sites and their relationship to adolescents’ well-being and social self-esteem. Cyber Psychology and Behavior9(5): 584–90.
86.
Von Thiele SchwarzULundmarkRHassonH (2016) The dynamic integrated evaluation model (DIEM): Achieving sustainability in organizational intervention through a participatory evaluation approach. Stress and Health32: 285–93.
87.
WalkerK (2007) Youth empowerment evaluation: Learning voice. American Journal of Evaluation28(3): 321–6.
88.
WellmanBHaaseAQWitteJ, et al. (2001) Does the Internet increase, decrease, or supplement social capital?American Behavioral Scientist45(3): 436–55.
89.
ZeldinSChristensBPowersJ (2012) The psychology and practice of youth adult partnership: Bridging generations for youth development and community change. American Journal of Community Psychology51: 385–97.
