Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Young age is a critical risk factor for loneliness. Yet, loneliness research and methods are missing the perspectives of young people. Current methods for investigating loneliness obscure the unique experience of loneliness in earlier life and potentially place young people at risk of further social isolation. In this paper, we utilise a co-design process to create a safe method for investigating youth loneliness. This paper investigates what can be learned by reflexively applying a focus on space and loneliness to the process of developing a method to investigate young people's experiences of lonely spaces. This outlines in detail the slow process of developing a co-design research relationship with young people and draws on insights from focus groups with 10 young people from the South Australian Youth Forum. We argue that co-design revealed new insights into the importance of the ‘flow’ of conversation and reading the ‘vibes’ when investigating youth loneliness.

Keywords

co-design youth loneliness space consent

Introduction

Loneliness is a global health issue that has attracted significant funding and research (Prohaska et al., 2020: 1). Yet, loneliness continues to be popularly understood and primarily theoretically framed as an issue among older people (Bower et al., 2023; Yang et al., 2022). Dominant conceptualisations of loneliness employ age-based assumptions about the uniformity of the experience of loneliness across the life course (Malcom, 2021; Malli et al., 2023). Missing from this international literature are youth-centred and co-designed methods that promote the voices of young people in understanding loneliness. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, rates of loneliness among young people in Australia were increasing and had overtaken all other age groups (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2023). At the height of COVID-19 lockdowns, the prevalence of loneliness among young people surged to unprecedented levels in Australia (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2021; Lim et al., 2019) and the scale of the issue among young people internationally was brought to the fore (O'Sullivan et al., 2021).

Loneliness remains a significant issue, with one in four young people in Australia feeling lonely in 2022 (Leung et al., 2022) and one in five young people in 2023 (McHale et al., 2023). Some estimates of loneliness among young Australians are as high as half of young people (Groundswell Foundation and KPMG, 2022), and gender-diverse young people feel lonely more often with two in five stating they are lonely most or all of the time in 2023 (McHale et al., 2023). In spite of this, loneliness research remains predominantly focused on the health impacts in later life (Bower et al., 2023; Prohaska et al., 2020: 1; Yang et al., 2022), leaving earlier life experiences critically under-researched and conceptualised. Young people's experiences of loneliness are needed to inform scholarship and action on this critical issue.

This project aimed to co-design an investigation of loneliness in young people through a spatial lens. Co-design is an important contemporary concern in research with young people (Collin and Swist, 2016; Loveridge et al., 2023). Co-design aims to facilitated ‘meaningful end-user engagement’ (Slattery et al., 2020: 3) across all stages of a research project, and prioritises sustainable relationships and social justice. Spatial approaches to youth research – that focus on the physical and associated social features of space – offer a lens that avoids some of the problems of transitional conceptualisations of youth and the deficit implications of bio-psychological development theories (Farrugia and Wood, 2017). In partnership with the South Australian Youth Forum (SAYF), an advocacy organisation created by young people for young people, Lohmeyer and Brock-Fable co-designed a method for investigating loneliness in young people. As we describe below, Lohmeyer and Brock-Fabel discovered a shared interest in youth loneliness based on Lohmeyer's research interest and Brock-Fabel's advocacy work. Orton was invited to contribute to the writing up of the methods paper drawing on their participatory research expertise. This paper focuses on the process of co-design and investigates what can be learned by reflexively applying the focus on space and loneliness to the process of developing a research method. In other words, how might the medium (method of research) fit the message (youth, loneliness, and space).

We begin this paper with a brief overview of the dominant conceptualisations of loneliness and outline how the embedded age-based assumptions present problems for investigating loneliness among younger people. While contemporary research is challenging these assumptions through a focus on space, there remains a gap in the conceptualisation of loneliness from young people's perspective. Following this, we provide an introduction to the key principles and practices of contemporary co-design with young people. Rather than a comprehensive review of the loneliness and co-design literature, these sections inform the analysis of this project's co-design process. Subsequently, we provide a more detailed account of the process of co-design, including a background on the development of relationships. Finally, we present and simultaneously discuss key insights from transcribed recordings of the focus groups in which the SA Youth Forum co-designed a youth-centred approach to investigate loneliness. We argue that applying the focus on space and connection in loneliness research to the co-design process reveals new insights into the risks, but also the importance, of the ‘flow’ of conversation and reading the ‘vibes’ when investigating loneliness with young people.

Loneliness and young people

The health impacts of loneliness are compared in the research literature to heavy smoking and alcohol consumption (Flegal et al., 2013; Holt-Lunstad et al., 2015; Kung et al., 2021: 148). A consensus statement on the definition of loneliness was published in 2020 after an international conference of researchers, practitioners and policymakers in Belfast defined loneliness as ‘a subjective negative experience that results from inadequate meaningful connections’, (Prohaska et al., 2020: 1). This definition reflects the biomedical dominance of the field and Weiss’ (1973) seminal work that depicted loneliness as ‘social pain’ (Cacioppo et al., 2014; Kung et al., 2021; Perlman and Peplau, 1981; World Health Organization, 2021). However, there are at least three different approaches to defining loneliness that emphasise the social experience, the cognitive elements and the philosophical realities of this human experience (Malli et al., 2023).

Dominant approaches

Defining loneliness as social pain or a ‘discrepancy between one's desired and achieved levels of social relations’ (Perlman and Peplau, 1981: 32) positions the phenomenon as an ‘emotional response to an absence’ (Franklin et al., 2019: 129). This conceptualisation of loneliness as an ‘absence’ (of connection) produces problems for research participants to ‘conceptualise and thus recall’ the experiences and convey them to a researcher (Franklin et al., 2019: 129) as it requires them to think about an abstract experience of missing something. Furthermore, this conceptualisation of loneliness raises ethical questions for researchers who ask participants to recall painful and potentially harmful experiences.

Other frameworks, such as Cacioppo et al.'s (2014) evolutionary biology perspective, suggest loneliness is akin to other survival mechanisms, such as hunger and thirst, that ensure the survival of a species. Popular methods of loneliness interventions draw on ‘cognitive deficit model[s]’ (Victor et al., 2018) that seek to modify social cognition (Malli et al., 2023) and modify the desire for more social connections. Within these models is an inherent adult-centrism. Biomedical loneliness research characteristically suggests that one becomes lonelier with age (Malli et al., 2023) or, alternatively, that loneliness in earlier life is a normal developmental phase (Cacioppo et al., 2014; Malcom, 2021; McWhirter et al., 2002). In addition to individualising and pathologising the problem, these approaches start with an assumed (economically) productive and socially connected adult as the normal object of study. This assumption supports the conceptualisation of loneliness as either a cognitive dysfunction that prevents (Victor et al., 2018), or an evolutionary signal that promotes (Cacioppo et al., 2014), supposedly normal productive and social function.

These approaches to loneliness overlook a range of social experiences including how these experiences might change over time. For example, while loneliness in older adults might reflect the loss of meaningful connections (through death or retirement), innovative research with young people shows the impact of the presence of dysfunctional connections that might promote loneliness, as well as the unique social, developmental, and political contexts at difference stages of the life course (Yang et al., 2022). Youth Studies has a long history of challenging the assumed linear child-to-adult transition models of ‘adolescence’ (Lohmeyer, 2020a, 2020b; White et al., 2017; Wyn and White, 1997; Wyn et al., 2011). As noted above, Farrugia and Wood (2017) argued that a focus on space, rather than time, offers an interdisciplinary avenue to conceptualise youth without the deficit implications of bio-psychological development. This paper aims to contribute to the literature calling for further consideration of how loneliness changes across the life course.

Contemporary alternatives

Contemporary sociological research is exploring loneliness as a product of space or built environments. ‘Built environments’ refers simply to ‘human-made space(s) in which people live, work and recreate on a day-to-day basis’ (Roof and Oleru, 2008: 24). In their systematic review, Bower et al. (2023) implore, and demonstrate the need for, loneliness researchers to ‘think more relationally about which aspects of the built environment’ (13) impact on loneliness. Attention has been paid in research to care homes (Neves et al., 2019) and online spaces (Neves and Baecker, 2022) for older people. Likewise, there is research demonstrating the value of ‘bumping spaces’ (Farmer et al., 2021: 10) in affording opportunities to build social connections. Bumping spaces are spaces where physical ‘infrastructure’ (Karg et al., 2021: 15) encourages social connection such ‘kitchens, art galleries, the local café, even small spaces in parks or corridors at the gym or yoga class, and public artwork’ (Farmer et al., 2021: 10). Community centres (Lohmeyer and Wong, 2022), public spaces and public transport (Prohaska et al., 2020; World Health Organization, 2021) can also be enhanced by creating ‘green and blue spaces’ (i.e., garden and water features) (Bagnall et al., 2018).

While the design and use of physical spaces are important, social, cultural and economic dimensions within space also have important roles to play in either contributing to the potential to maintain or form new social connections and relationships, or conversely in discouraging this potential at individual and intergroup levels. For example, prejudice and discrimination might discourage interactions with those who are seen as different, as well as add to negative experiences within interactions that do take place (Kenworthy et al., 2005). In contexts where diversity is prevalent, these may all therefore enhance loneliness and social isolation by reducing the range of connections with others. Conversely, there are decades of evidence demonstrating that some supported forms of contact between groups under certain conditions may help break down barriers of prejudice and promote wider intergroup contact in future (e.g. see Dovidio et al., 2005, especially the chapter by Kenworthy et al., 2005, building on Allport's influential 1954 contact hypothesis).

One practical example of this can be seen in the aims of the growing Intercultural Cities programme of the Council of Europe, which include engineering ‘Meaningful interaction between diverse individuals and groups … through public policies that promote trust, create connections and transform the public space in a way that it multiplies occasions for encounters, exchange and dialogue’ (Council of Europe, N.D.). The norms of interaction within particular spaces, groups and contexts may affect how comfortable individuals feel in approaching others within or beyond the groups that they identify with to form new relationships, as well as what reactions they expect when they do. More widely, the significant body of literature on social capital (in its various theoretical forms; see Field (2017)) similarly points to the social importance of (in Putnam's (2000) formulation) networks and norms of reciprocity and trust between individuals, and the social and economic consequences where these decline. There remain complex debates about the relationships between different forms of social capital such as bonding, bridging and linking forms within changing forms of civil society (Field, 2017; Woolcock, 2001).

Distinctions might also be made between spaces where someone might initially encounter new people, and spaces that facilitate the building of deeper connections and relationships with them (as explored in Orton 2009; DCLG/NCF, 2008). In other words, it is also the meaningfulness of the social interaction that matters (Wigfield et al., 2022). For example, one might encounter many people that one hasn't met before on a crowded underground train, but in most instances still might not have any meaningful interaction with them leading to a continued relationship. Social and economic rationales, such as ‘competition, rugged individualism and personal success’ (Perlman and Peplau, 1981: 44–45), have been identified as drivers of loneliness and can reduce the availability of social spaces in which those without money can interact. Furthermore, the design and rules that govern public spaces can discourage people from dallying in particular locations (Smithsimon, 2010) unless they are spending money. This may be further exacerbated by the decreasing presence of ‘third spaces’ in capitalist societies (Oldenburg, 2010, that is spaces outside of the home (first places) and work (second places) that serve as a ‘remedy for stress, loneliness, and alienation’ (43). Community work as a field of practice has developed an important international body of literature on the complexities and ethics of building more diverse interactions and stronger dialogue and relationships between individuals and groups within particular contexts; such work takes place in the context of building their capacity to take action on shared aims, including responses to the challenges this can bring in practice (e.g. Banks and Westoby, 2019; Westoby and Dowling, 2013).

These broader analyses point to loneliness as a social, cultural and economic phenomenon, not just being caused by an individual deficiency or driver. They highlight how policy and professional practice responses might extend beyond individualised interventions such as cognitive behavioural therapy, to consider wider social contexts. Such responses can also include consideration of policies that promote cross-community interaction and tackle division, through reviewing existing approaches and taking account of intersectionality in supporting diverse bases of commonalities and reasons for interaction. They also involve paying attention to the social fabric and health of diverse civil society, promoting different forms of social capital including bonding, bridging and linking connections across diversity.

There is a dearth of literature on how such approaches might apply to young people. Given young people seldom have a choice over the spaces they occupy (Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2011; France et al., 2020), the need to investigate these spaces is pressing. There is a small body of existing research that investigates young people's experiences of loneliness and space. This literature investigates the impact of homes (Groot et al., 2022; Meloni, 2020; Worsley et al., 2021), neighbourhoods (Gerodimos, 2018; Marquez et al., 2023; Moore et al., 2023) and schools (Goodall, 2018; Schnepf et al., 2023; Yang et al., 2022). Among these, schools are identified as particularly important given the amount of time young people are required to occupy them and the limited choice they have about who else might be in the schoolyard or classroom (Schnepf et al., 2023). However, this literature that demonstrates the significance of the school for loneliness in young people is largely quantitative and reliant on existing adult-centric framing of loneliness. As such, this project fills an important gap in the literature by beginning with young people's experiences and expertise.

Co-design with young people

Co-design and participation are important contemporary concerns for research with young people (Collin and Swist, 2016; Loveridge et al., 2023). A recent surge in co-design and participatory research has attracted critique for lacking definitional clarity (Slattery et al., 2020) and, like empowerment, simply becoming ‘buzzwords’ (Corney et al., 2020: 34). Co-design is furthermore represented as an ‘approach’ (Loveridge et al., 2023: 398) to research, a ‘feature’ of other approaches (Russ et al., 2024: 3), as well as a ‘method’ (Armstrong et al., 2023: 1005) and ‘methodology’ (1006). While ‘clearer and more consistent terminology’ (Slattery et al., 2020: 13) may indeed help, as Slattery et al. (2020) argue in their review of co-design in health research, arguably the unifying ‘desire for mutual cooperation between young people and adults’ (Lohmeyer et al., 2024: 195) and clarity over how this has been achieved within this particular research context, is more important. Slattery et al. (2020) offer the following description of co-design in a health context.

Co-design is meaningful end-user engagement in research design and includes instances of engagement that occur across all stages of the research process and range in intensity from relatively passive to highly active and involved. (3)

Co-design and participatory practices routinely trace their origins to the United Nations (1989) Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 12, the right to participate in decisions that affect their lives. In addition, nods to critical pedagogies and Freire's (2005) conscientisation are consistently cited as foundational. Participatory research aims to challenge the hierarchical power relationships between researchers and participants within objective positivist epistemologies (Strega, 2005) and engages people as equal subjects rather than the objects of research (Loveridge et al., 2023).

Children and young people's participation in research draws on several well-known models for designing and evaluating participation including Arnstein's (1969) and Hart's (1992) ladders of participation. These models have been critiqued by contemporary scholars for a reliance on child development psychology and hierarchical power dynamics (Andersson, 2017). Furthermore, the hierarchical arrangements of these typologies of participation oversimplify the nature of participation in practice (Loveridge et al., 2023) and prescribe ‘good’ and ‘bad’ forms of participation (Andersson, 2017: 1350). Instead, Andersson argued that participation is a relational phenomenon that is ‘dependent on the context, situation, time and process, institutional aims and purposes, consequences, participating individuals and their motives, interests, passions, knowledge, actions and so forth’ (1350).

Youth participatory action research has been described as a ‘family of approaches’ (Loveridge et al., 2023: 8) that includes co-design and social justice outcomes. Co-design aims to position young people and adults as equals in the research process and has been employed somewhat synonymous with Cooperative Inquiry (Bowler et al., 2021: 15). Similarly, co-production has been described as ensuring participants are involved in the whole project from design, data collection to analysis (Hartworth et al., 2021). Furthermore, participatory design (PD), often employed in technology design (Bowler et al., 2021: 15), emphasises the privileging of participant's knowledge and rights over the design process (Collin and Swist, 2016: 308). One form of knowledge is not privileged above others and an emphasis is placed on ‘how people relate to each other during the research process’ (Abma et al., 2019: 7). Neither a method nor a methodology on its own, co-design might most usefully be thought of as a series of ‘commitments’ (Collin and Swist, 2016) continuously negotiated with the subjects of the research. Across the varying terminology, the central aims appear to be jointly held, (1) to centre participants in the process as much as possible, and (2) to prioritise social justice and relationships in the process and outcomes.

Relationships

Sustainable relationships have long been a central concern for participatory research (Banks et al., 2013) informed by a feminist ethic of care (Loveridge et al., 2023). Reflexive application of these concerns to research in youth and community work contexts has further detailed the nature, benefits and challenges of sustaining consenting relationships in youth research (Lohmeyer et al., 2024). Loveridge et al. (2023) argue that rather than ‘one-off snatch and grab research’ (p. 5), an ethic of care implies reciprocity and a continuing relationship. These research partnerships can take a long time to develop. The slow pace of relationship building can be a challenge in tight research timelines (Abma et al., 2019: 113). However, they can evolve from pre-existing non-research relationships (Banks et al., 2013: 264) with established practices of reciprocity and respect.

Loveridge et al. (2023) argue that in addition to broad principles, ethical practice requires the kind of relationship skills that are developed over time through sustained work with young people. The skills attained through practice include reading non-verbal and social ‘cues’ (Loveridge et al., 2023: 15) that might indicate the unspoken withdrawal of consent and guide ethical decision-making in relational contexts (Brooks and Te Riele, 2013). The pre-existing relationship between the researcher and young people in a youth work context can be positioned as a strength in terms of offering a sustained and caring relationship, rather than ethically compromising (see Bessant et al., 2013; Brooks and Te Riele, 2013). Banks et al. (2013) argue that the key attributes of a participatory action researcher are ‘relational virtues, such as trustworthiness (reliability and not letting others down)’ (p. 266). Moreover, the outcome of participatory approaches can be the development of empathy in researchers and participants (Hartworth et al., 2021).

Space

Participatory research also has a long tradition of focussing on space. An essential requirement to generate data ‘is building a space where people can feel comfortable and safe’ (Abma et al., 2019: 129). This has elsewhere been described as a ‘communicative space’ (Banks et al., 2013: 126) that fosters mutuality, learning and understanding. These spaces are inevitably messy, and don’t conform to the linear and positivist notions of objectivity. Like the relationships described above, these spaces require work and the process is slow but essential to encourage the trust needed to discuss difficult and vulnerable topics (Abma et al., 2019: 113). Ultimately these spaces acknowledge the ‘humanness’ (Banks et al., 2013: 116) required for working together in this way and about difficult topics. These spaces can require the presence of someone who has skills in ‘holding open participatory space’ (Loveridge et al., 2023: 13) and managing the complexity and flux of democratic dialogue. This can contrast the realities of formal ethics processes that have been described as a ‘blizzard of paperwork’ (Van den Hoonaard, 2011: 45) and becoming the dominant narrative of research projects (Allen, 2009) detracting from the needs or wishes of young people (Lohmeyer, 2020a, 2020b).

Collin and Swist (2016) argue that PD has the potential to shift the focus from creating products to the creation of publics. This kind of participatory process aims to create groups of young people, or publics, who have a shared collective interest (Boyd, 2011) and are prepared to respond to socio-material issues in their context (Collin and Swist, 2016). Collin and Swist (2016) refer to this process as ‘infrastructuring’ which emphasises the ‘transformation of contexts, practices, technologies and social relations’ (310). Infrastructuring could be conceptualised as the combination of social spaces and relationships that support young people to enact change, through processes such as research.

Developing relationships

This project was co-designed as a participatory action project in partnership with the SA Youth Forum. Our description of the co-design process begins with the origins of the relationship between authors and young people. The SAYF, founded in 2021 by Amber Brock-Fabel at the age of 17, provides a platform and community led by young people for young people aged 14 to 18. Constructed with the primary intent of promoting young voices in decision-making processes, the Forum aims to bridge the gap between young people and those in positions of power. Since the Forum's establishment, the members have worked with both government and non-government organisations providing representation at various decision-making levels.

Each month the Forum meets to discuss a salient issue selected by the members. Each year, the SAYF publish a report outlining major issues and concerns discussed in the Forum in that year. In their 2022 report, loneliness was a key issue of concern (Brock-Fabel, 2022). During the forum's discussions that year, feeling lonely and disengaging from school and extracurricular activities was a unanimous experience among members. The young people expressed concerns about the substantial obstacles they face, especially throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, in creating or being part of an environment where a true feeling of belonging and community can be fostered. It is evident from preliminary conversations within the Forum that despite COVID-19 happening or not, loneliness for them is real, it is detrimental, and it is pervasive.

Amber Brock-Fabel and Ben Lohmeyer first connected in 2021 on a conference panel discussing the integration of environmental sustainability in youth work. Later, Lohmeyer supported the dissemination of the SAYF 2022 report to local youth sector networks and elected officials. The dissemination of the report coincided with the conclusion of a project led by Lohmeyer on Loneliness in Community Centres in SA (Lohmeyer and Wong, 2022) resulting in a discussion of the possibility of a co-designed loneliness research project. Careful consideration was given to how to engage with the SAYF to balance the roles as participants and co-researchers without overburdening them with the demands of universities. This included the degree of involvement in writing the ethics application and several prior grant applications to fund the project. It was also important to not disrupt their regular meeting schedule and the demands of their secondary schooling. Ideally, the project aimed to value the members of the forum's time through remuneration; however, several early attempts at sourcing funding were unsuccessful, and after several months, the forum agreed to go ahead with the first stages. Lohmeyer developed an ethics application for Flinders University's Ethics committee (approval number 6313) in consultation with Brock-Fabel who in turn consulted the full forum. Brock-Fabel was a named co-researcher on the project. The application drew on the principles of participatory action research as outlined in the Centre for Social Justice and Community Action Community-based participatory research: A guide to ethical principles and practice (2022).

Recruitment

All forum members for 2023 were invited via email to participate in a series of focus groups where they could create and test a method for investigating loneliness. This process is the focus of the subsequent section. Ten young people participated across three semi-structured focus groups of approximately 90 min each. It was important that participants not feel coerced to participate in this project just because they were in the SAYF. As such, responses to the invitation to participate were sent directly to Lohmeyer. Brock-Fabel was not notified of who declined to participate.

Focus groups were facilitated by Lohmeyer. They were audio recorded and transcribed. In addition to the standard practice of anonymising participant names, with up to 10 people in a semi-structured focus group, it was not always possible to identify the speaker in the transcription process. However, in the data below, quotes have been attributed a pseudonym to emphasise the humanity of the speaker rather than using a generic code or non-attribution.

Co-analysis

Transcriptions were reflexively thematically analysed (Braun and Clarke, 2019) using Nvivo software for persistent and significant themes. This project employed a ‘recursive process’ (Braun and Clarke, 2006: 86) of multiple rounds of inductive coding. In this process, researchers simultaneously aim to identify persistent themes and recognise their own biases in the process. Braun and Clarke (2019: 549) describe this as a process of ‘continual bending back on oneself’. A first round of ‘open coding’ (Silverman, 2006: 96; Taylor et al., 2015: 180) was conducted by Lohmeyer. This was focused on codes relating to the participants’ experience of loneliness and space, as well as reflections on creating a process for data collection. A summary of these themes was presented back to the participants for their feedback in the subsequent focus groups, thereby creating an opportunity for co-analysis and improving reliability.

A second round of analysis was conducted with Brock-Fabel to further inform the co-analysis. While perhaps not representing a typical form of ‘focused coding’ (Silverman, 2006: 96; Taylor et al., 2015: 180), this round concentrated on significant themes identified in the first round and facilitated Brock-Fabel providing an interpretation of which themes and quotations where a significant representation of the participants’ experience. Subsequently, anonymised (i.e. identifying details removed) key quotes and insights were presented to Orton to further interrogate the process and findings. This approach involved multiple perspectives and critical insight following the principles of reflexive thematic analysis. The justification for the significance of a code or theme is not simply the number of instances (Braun and Clarke, 2006: 82; Taylor et al., 2015: 188). Rather, a theme is significant if it ‘captures something important in relation to the overall research question’ (Braun and Clarke, 2006: 82). In our analysis, attention is paid in this paper firstly to participants’ experiences of connection or disconnection and participation. If loneliness is an absence of desired meaningful connection, then how participants describe their experience of connection (or disconnection) through the co-design process offers insights into how to investigate loneliness with young people while promoting connection. Secondly, attention was paid to the impact of space or the implications for space of these experiences of connection and disconnection.

Lohmeyer undertook a fellowship at Durham University in late 2023, to collaborate with Orton on co-design in research. Preliminary findings from the focus groups with the forum were co-presented with Brock-Fable via web-conferencing to the Communities and Social Justice Research strand at Durham University to continue the co-design relationship into analysis and dissemination. Orton subsequently joined the team to inform the analysis of the co-design process. This detailed account of the project development serves to demonstrate in practice the slow process of relational development in co-design. It also serves to provide important context for the creation of a safe space in the latter data analysis stage.

Spaces supporting connection: The negotiation of consent

At the beginning of the first co-design focus group with the SA Youth Forum, in addition to a preamble about the process, consent and participation, Lohmeyer briefly outlined the background for the research (as described above) and the broader issue of loneliness among young people in Australia. While co-design typically includes relationship building, and establishing group norms and decision-making processes in the early stages (Kong et al., 2022), the Forum was already established as a group and an ‘ice breaker’ or similar rapport-building exercises were not employed. Instead, after the general introduction, participants spontaneously asked how loneliness was being defined, and a vibrant conversation ensued discussing the meaning and experience of loneliness in their lives.

After the initial conversation about defining loneliness, Lohmeyer suggested utilising a Participatory Graphical Information Systems (PGIS) method to explore lonely spaces in their lives, to which the young people agreed. PGIS is an established method for community-based empowerment-oriented data collection (Yeager and Steiger, 2013). In its simplest form, PGIS involves plotting points or moments of significance in physical space (i.e. on a map). The approach has ‘powerful capabilities for visualising different types of spatial and social relationships’ (Yeager and Steiger, 2013: 2). This approach combines object creation with elicitation methods and can support the building of rapport, promote reflexivity, and account for diverse participation needs (Bagnoli, 2009).

Bumping spaces for established connections

During the co-design focus groups, little direction was provided for the group on how to construct maps of lonely spaces and several variations quickly emerged. Some participants drew maps to represent the features of their schools, homes and local public spaces. Other participants drew a timeline of their day or week, while still others combined the locations and the timelines into a visual representation of transitional moments in their everyday lives. Participants observed their peers’ techniques and quickly adopted those they deemed helpful, such as using sticky notes to identify and record the features of certain times and locations on their maps. As members of the groups appeared to be completing their maps, they were encouraged to share them as a whole group. In presenting their visual representation of loneliness and space, the group asked questions and discussed their creations, shared features and experiences. At the conclusion of the first focus group, participants were invited to reflect on what worked well in the process.

Focus group 1

Jordan: … [a] positive is that we all know each other and that we’ve been working with each other for this year. So we are more comfortable with it. I think also another positive was that everyone comes from, well mostly everyone, comes from different schools. So, you're able to bring out things and then like see where that connects with your school or not. I feel like there might be a bit of interlocked in schools where like I might find that place lonely, but that person might not find that place lonely. So, then I might not say it because, but that might be like the cool person or something.

Blake: … because we all come from different schools and then also the factor of we're all like quite happy and comfortable with each other is like talking about loneliness among all things that young people can talk about. If you were to do it in a school environment. And you were to basically say like, I feel lonely in this space. You wouldn't probably say that around the people that you feel lonely around. Or like in the place.

The focus group took place after the Forum had already been working together for several months. The group's comfort in discussing vulnerable topics can be attributed to the slow development of relationships (Abma et al., 2019: 113) and established practices of reciprocity and respect (Banks et al., 2013: 264). While Lohmeyer was new to the group, the established group dynamic and the relationship with Brock-Fable meant interruptions were reduced. Notably, these participants discussed spatial elements of this experience, including the differences between their Forum space and school, as well as who is occupying the space; i.e. ‘cool’ people and ‘people that you feel lonely around’. The participants contrast their experience in the Forum with what it might have been like if they were in school.

Focus group 2

Kai: Yeah. Exactly like with the forum I, like, was happy to share and I wanted to share, and I was not judging anyone and it was great to hear. But yeah, at school, it would definitely be, you know, you would pay extra attention to what, like, maybe the weirder kids are saying, and it would just be kind of a free for all in terms of like, extra reasons to bully someone.

The Forum provided a safe space to discuss loneliness. The Forum is a ‘bumping space’ (Farmer et al., 2021: 10) where young people from different schools come together with social permission to build connections to discuss issues. However, it was not just the space, but the meaningfulness of the social interaction (Wigfield et al., 2022) in the space that matters. The Forum fosters a culture of ‘not judging’, as compared to a school environment where there would be a focus on what the ‘weirder kids are saying’. Points of differentiation or things that make a student stand out in schools are a known source of bullying (Thornberg, 2011). Social and affective hierarchies are rife in schools, and despite popular tropes, bullies are also the socially popular (‘cool’) students (Lohmeyer and Threadgold, 2023; Yoneyama, 2015). In contrast, the Forum provided a space that was free from fear of being singled out.

Finding flow and the right vibes

In the above excerpts, the participants discussed the importance of their pre-existing connection and the culture of the group that created a space that was safe for sharing about loneliness. These dynamics reflect much of what is already known about creating safe (Abma et al., 2019) and ‘communicative space[s]’ (Banks et al., 2013: 126) for effective co-design. With these foundational experiences in place, the participants went on to describe less tangible experiences of their space.

Focus group 1

Rowan: I guess like this round table to discussion and with like this many people probably works pretty well because I think groups that are smaller are a little bit too intimate where it's like you have to really…

Morgan: You can't sit back

Rowan: You can’t sit back, exactly. People will notice if it is not a bigger group. You can pitch in where you feel comfortable without feeling the pressure of the conversation going silent. That being said, it might be like an unfair test in this room because we [are] all used to doing this and we're comfortable to talk. And even when we talk and someone else starts talking, we're very used to be like, oh, no, we've got a good flow … if you did this in a school when you said like groups of 10 or something, people couldn't sit quietly.

The ‘flow’ of the group provides an opportunity for people to contribute or to ‘sit back’ and listen if they do not want to contribute. In describing young people's temporal and spatial experiences of violence, Henriksen and Bengtsson (2018) argue there is a ‘flux and flow’ (p. 102) to the complex interaction between people and place as well as victims and perpetrators of social harm. In the Forum this flow creates safety, however, in the absence of safety in another context this flow might produce social harm. Furthermore, this dynamic provides insight into the active negotiation of consent and participation that requires reading non-verbal and social ‘cues’ (Loveridge et al., 2023: 15). Participants’ safety in the group appears to be attached to size and composition, but is also part of the history of the group. While discussing the composition of the research team for the future, the group participants recounted an experience consulting with a government department in which the facilitators were not attuned to these dynamics, particularly in regard to gender.

Focus group 3

Taylor: I don't think it would be a problem that it's a male, like you've got [anonymised female group member] and then whoever.

Adair: Yeah, but that's a complete power, like, imbalance.

Taylor: I think it's still important to have a gender balance.

…

Adair: but I'm still thinking like, if I were a student in this focus group, I would feel the same way that I did in the [anonymised consultation event] …

Taylor: You just wouldn't be the vibes. We need the vibes.

…

Adair: … like think back to our [anonymised consultation event] thing. And it was like all of these guys. And then there's one woman in the corner.

Taylor: Yeah.

Ash: And she was picking up cups and like and then she randomly said something at the end, and it was so inspiring. And we were like, wow.

…

Taylor: There were like three guys, like in suits.

…

Adair: That wasn’t really comfortable.

Taylor: No, exactly.

Ash: … I was like, going to say something about, like, period poverty, and they were like, ‘oh, oh I will pop it down’.

The Forum had consulted with a government agency on various issues; however, the event was being facilitated by three males ‘in suits’ with one woman ‘in the corner’. Members of the Forum felt uncomfortable raising gender-specific topics and it was implied that the facilitators were not attuned to these cues or how to respond to their discomfort. A gendered power imbalance was an obvious issue for the Forum, and given Lohmeyer's position as the adult male lead-researcher on the project, strategies to counter this power imbalance were discussed for implementing the co-designed method with other young people. These strategies included centring the Forum members as co-researchers and recruiting another non-male researcher.

The group's existing relationships and established culture were important contributors to the participants comfort discussing loneliness. In addition, the size of the group and non-hierarchical power structure contributed to a positive ‘flow’ of the group and the creation of the right ‘vibes’ for safe conversation. The flow and vibes appeared to constrain the participants’ sense of connection and the negotiation of participation and consent. These participants experience suggest that for effective co-design with young people around loneliness, ‘we need the vibes’. However, the flow and vibes had a spatial dimension when the Forum members contrasted their experience to how it might have been to discuss loneliness in school. This spatial dynamic became clearer by examining the potential for disconnection.

Spatial constraints on consent in loneliness research with young people

As noted above, participants contrasted their experience in the Forum with how they imagined their experience might have been if this process had been undertaken in schools. The turn to the impact of ‘built environments’ (Bower et al., 2023: 13) on loneliness has largely focussed on housing and care homes for older people (Neves et al., 2019), ignoring a critically important built space that young people are required to occupy most; that is, schools. There is notable literature unpacking the issues of conducting research in schools including the ethical problems of research in an environment that prioritises conformity and control (Brooks and Te Riele, 2013; Felzmann, 2009). However, the participants’ reflections on these issues are not insightful simply because they add to this literature, but rather because they describe spatial dynamics of disconnection that constrain the possibility of negotiating consent in loneliness research with young people.

Focus group 2

Kai: … like there's no way we would share at school. But depending on the group, like if it was like maybe a social studies or society and culture class and they're all that kind of connected in a way that maybe they communicate like we do at the forum, … because I still feel like that was like really like valuable discussion and I really enjoyed speaking about it with everyone.

While Kai is adamant that schools are not a space where she would want to share about loneliness, she also says the conversation in the Forum was a valuable and enjoyable discussion. She identifies spaces and groups within the school where young people might have the kind of connection to facilitate open communication. These spaces might exist among groups who have existing relationships and a history of discussing similar topics.

Unwanted spatial connections

In light of the framing of loneliness by Cacioppo et al. (2014) as an evolutionary mechanism that ensures the survival of a social species, the social dynamics and implications of simply discussing loneliness, let alone experiencing it, are pertinent. Above, Jordan and Blake discussed the risks of being vulnerable in front of ‘cool’ people. Following this exchange, the group went on to specify the spatial risk involved in social group dynamics.

Focus group 1

Cameron: … no, you never want to know to realise that you're lonely, you know.

Riley: That's so vulnerable.

Cameron: We don't want other people to know you're lonely and where you're lonely. Because then if you say like, ‘I feel lonely in this place’, they're all gonna know that when you're there, go there, you're lonely.

Discussing loneliness with the wrong group of people in a school is problematic because being identified as lonely is stigmatising and young people must continue to occupy the same space afterwards. It appears that framing loneliness as a signal that drives one back to the social group (Cacioppo et al., 2014) radically oversimplifies the social experience and message of loneliness for young people. Furthermore, it's not just the ‘absence’ (Franklin et al., 2019: 129) of meaningful connection that promotes loneliness or the presence of unwanted relationships (Yang et al., 2022; Lohmeyer and SA Youth Forum, 2025), but also these experiences take place in a space; one that young people cannot escape. The co-design process revealed that in the school context, the spatial experience of loneliness is important. There are places in schools associated with loneliness and revealing these spaces to others risks further disconnection if you are required to continue to occupy the space.

Strategies for withdrawing consent

Sharing the spaces that they feel lonely, or that lonely people occupy, risks young people in school later identifying themselves as lonely to others. This insight also challenges ‘cognitive deficit model’ (Victor et al., 2018) of loneliness. Changing one's perception of individual desires for connection is likely to have little impact if the space they occupy is associated with loneliness. According to these young people, identifying yourself to others (or yourselves) must be avoided for social survival. Furthermore, these spaces are occupied as a social coping strategy, perhaps as a kind of third space remedy for loneliness (Oldenburg, 2010). Yet, the space is useful only if others are not aware it is used for this purpose.

Focus group 2

Ash: … if I shared area where I feel lonely and stuff like that. It's very vulnerable and … I would lie. I would just say, well, everyone else would have said before me, so I wouldn't say the truth …

Kai: … either you're gonna have to prepare yourself for that and have, like, the individual interviews, ready to go and look ready to be an option. Or you're gonna have to kind of force people to talk. … you just have to have multiple options available because … I think it's possible that … no one could share.

Confronted with a vulnerable situation, and perhaps a facilitator who was not able to read the cues and the space, the members of the Forum stated they would lie or find means of creative resistance and non-participation. In contrast to ethical problems asking participants to recall lonely experiences as an abstract absence, the built environment and social implications of loneliness for young people present new ethical challenges. As already discussed, Loveridge et al. (2023) argue the mechanisms for sustaining consent in youth participatory research require a process of reading cues and being attuned to young people throughout the process. This includes the ability to read the ‘flow’ of the conversation and create the right ‘vibes’. Consent isn’t contained to formal processes at the beginning of the project but is part of an ongoing flow of negotiation. Failing to be attuned to these cues might fail to create the right vibes and cease young people's participation, or worse place them at risk of harm.

Changing the space

Formal consent processes often rely on participants withdrawing by declining to answer a question by removing themselves from an interview or focus group. However, these young people describe a kind of withdrawal that highlights the spatial assumptions of historical models of participation. Andersson (2017) argues context matters for the possibilities of participation, and part of this is space. Within the institutional environment of a school, with its emphasis on compliance and control (Yoneyama and Naito, 2003), physically removing oneself from a space or refusing to answer a question is not a viable option. As stated in the next excerpt, it is often a teacher's role to elicit responses from students who are not participating. Kai offers a simple (while arguably imperfect) solution: change the space. Providing alternatives, such as individual interviews, physically removes unwanted connections from the space.

Focus group 2

Kai: I think what we need is just a disclaimer … the researcher first needs to communicate with the teacher on what will be most beneficial for this workshop to run smoothly and to actually work. Also, giving the students a disclaimer, you could even make it into a funny thing on a PowerPoint saying like your teacher is not allowed to talk. Like, if you catch them talking, dob on them or like just something like that, make it a little bit funny, but also to get like the message out to students that like this is kind of a safe space … maybe before the workshop, the researcher has a little one-on-one with the teacher and kind of gives them an explanation on why it's beneficial that this is student-led or youth-led. So that this teacher doesn't feel like it's their job to make the students talk. Because that's what their job is usually.

Kai's suggestion explicitly acknowledging the problematic dynamics of the space and, through humour, could provide an avenue to counter these issues and support the creation of a safe space for young people to lead a discussion on loneliness. Yet it is fraught with danger as humour used poorly can reinforce existing hierarchies (Critchley, 2004), normalise harmful interactions (Yoneyama and Naito, 2003) and be employed to avoid responsibility for relational harm (Rawlings, 2019). The strategy of employing humour to change the space requires skilled facilitation of the flow of conversation to create the right vibes.

Applying a spatial lens through the co-design process to the negotiation of consent and participation in researching loneliness picks up on the known issues of researching in schools. It also provides new insights into young people's experience of loneliness and the potential to exacerbate disconnection if young people are not involved in leading the conversation. Adult-centric conceptualisations of loneliness that individualise and pathologise the issue oversimply the social and spatial experiences of loneliness. The presence of unwanted social connections and the absence of spaces that remedy loneliness appear to be important drivers of loneliness in early life. Failing to understand these experiences might result in non-participation and social harm to young people. Yet, through co-designing the project with young people, potential remedies can be uncovered such as changing the physical and social space.

Conclusion

Globally young age is recognised as a risk factor and in Australia young people are the loneliest age group. Historically dominant conceptualisations of loneliness have constrained research on this topic to overly simplified conceptions of the social experience as a result of using research methods that exclude young people's experiences and voices. While new approaches include examining space, the absence of co-design means the unique concerns within the spaces young people occupy are still overlooked. Co-design with young people provides an avenue to address this issue by centring their experiences and avoiding the existing assumptions that constrain opportunities for investigation. This approach simultaneously creates a youth-centred method for data collection and avoids the assumptions of historical adult-centric conceptualisations of loneliness.

In this paper, we reflexively apply the concerns for space and connection in loneliness to the method of investigation. The experiences of young people in the SA Youth Forum demonstrate that it is possible to think about the co-design research process, in this case using focus groups, as a bumping space in which relationships develop slowly over time and participants can establish practices of reciprocity and respect. While this paper does not specify in detail the method designed for future research with young people on loneliness, reflexively applying a spatial lens to the co-design process has drawn attention to the importance of the ‘flow’ of the conversation in the space. Reading and responding to the cues of the flow is a skill researchers can acquire to navigate the co-design space and the needs of young people. Reading these cues helps to create the right ‘vibes’, without which the same space can produce disconnection.

Participatory research processes involving the young people seek not to be ‘snatch and grab’ interactions with an external researcher, but part of the ongoing building of networks of reciprocity and trust within particular spaces – recognising that where young people identify themselves as lonely, this may further reduce their social capital or increase their isolation, but conversely creating spaces to talk about this topic might inform better collective responses. Co-design and participatory action are slow processes of relationship development, but the dynamic nexus between the priorities of research and practice offers an opportunity promote the necessity of a slow process to stakeholders and funders (Lohmeyer et al., 2024). After their successful experience of investigating lonely spaces, the members of the SA Youth Forum discussed the potential for disconnection if the same experience was run in a different space; i.e. in a school. Attention to this potential for disconnection highlighted the loneliness that occurs when there are undesirable social connections in a space that young people are required to occupy.

Considering loneliness can be produced through undesirable social connections in a space, the young people in this study described strategies for withdrawing consent in a research encounter such as lying. Yet, these young people also discussed opportunities for changing the space using humour and supporting youth-led spaces. While not a simple solution, their suggestion to use humour returns to the importance of reading the flow and creating spaces with the right vibes. We argue that reflexively applying the focus on space and connection in youth loneliness research to the process of co-design provides new insights into the risks and opportunities of being attuned to the ‘flow’ and creating the right ‘vibes’ to challenge adult-centric assumptions of loneliness.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Ben Arnold Lohmeyer

Andrew Orton

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Ben Arnold Lohmeyer's research investigates young people's experiences of social harm such as bullying, violence and loneliness in institutions such as schools and child protection. He is passionate about participatory and co-design research methods with young people and informing youth policy and practice.

Amber Brock-Fabel is a youth advocate and the Founding Director of the South Australian Youth Forum, a platform dedicated to amplifying young voices and strengthening their impact on decision-making. Her advocacy spans climate action, gender equality, education, and youth loneliness. In recognition of her leadership in establishing and growing the Forum, she was named the 2025 Young South Australian of the Year.

Andrew Orton has a professional background in community and youth work as practitioner, manager, trustee and consultant. He has worked with a wide range of organisations in voluntary, public and faith-based sectors in these roles and through his research.

References

Abma

Banks

Cook

, et al. (2019) Participatory Research for Health and Social Well-Being. [Online]. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Allen

(2009) ‘Caught in the act’: Ethics committee review and researching the sexual culture of schools. Qualitative Research 9(4): 395–410.

Allport

(1954) The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Andersson

(2017) The pedagogical political participation model (the 3P-M) for exploring, explaining and affecting young people’s political participation. Journal of Youth Studies 20(10): 1346–1361.

Armstrong

Flynn

Salt

, et al. (2023) Trust and temporality in participatory research. Qualitative Research 23(4): 1000–1021.

Arnstein

(1969) A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 34(4): 216–224.

Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority (2011) National Report on Schooling in Australia 2011. Available at: https://www.acara.edu.au/reporting/national-report-on-schooling-in-australia/national-report-on-schooling-in-australia-2011/schools-and-schooling/school-structures (accessed 26 November).

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2021) Social Isolation and Loneliness. Australian Government. Available at: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-welfare/social-isolation-and-loneliness-covid-pandemic.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2023) Social Isolation, Loneliness and Wellbeing. Canberra: Australian Governement.

10.

Bagnall

South

Di Martino

, et al. (2018) A systematic review of interventions to boost social relations through improvements in community infrastructure (places and spaces).

11.

Bagnoli

(2009) Beyond the standard interview: The use of graphic elicitation and arts-based methods. Qualitative Research 9(5): 547–570.

12.

Banks

Armstrong

Carter

, et al. (2013) Everyday ethics in community-based participatory research. Contemporary Social Science 8(3): 263–277.

13.

Banks

Westoby

(eds) (2019) Ethics, Equity and Community Development. Bristol: Policy Press.

14.

Bessant

Emslie

Watts

(2013) When things go wrong: A reﬂection on students as youth researchers. In: Brooks

Te Riele

(eds) Negotiating Ethical Challenges in Youth Research. New York: Routledge, 31–42.

15.

Bower

Kent

Patulny

, et al. (2023) The impact of the built environment on loneliness: A systematic review and narrative synthesis. Health & Place 79: 102962.

16.

Bowler

Wang

Lopatovska

, et al. (2021) The meaning of “Participation” in co-design with children and youth: Relationships, roles, and interactions. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology 58(1): 13–24.

17.

Boyd

(2011) Social network sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics, and implications. In: Papacharissi

(ed) A Networked Self. Oxon: Routledge, 47–66.

18.

Braun

Clarke

(2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101.

19.

Braun

Clarke

(2019) Reflecting on reflexive thematic analysis. Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 11(4): 589–597.

20.

Brock-Fabel

(2022) South Australian Youth Forum Annual Report 2022.

21.

Brooks

Te Riele

(2013) Negotiating Ethical Challenges in Youth Research. New York: Routledge.

22.

Cacioppo

Boomsma

(2014) Evolutionary mechanisms for loneliness. Cognition & Emotion 28(1): 3–21.

23.

Centre for Social Justice and Community Action and National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement (2022) Community-based participatory research: A guide to ethical principles and practice. Durham, UK: Durham University. Available at: https://www.durham.ac.uk/media/durham-university/departments-/sociology/Community-Based-Participatory-Research-A-Guide-to-Ethical-Principles,-2nd-edition-(2022)-.pdf.

24.

Collin

Swist

(2016) From products to publics? The potential of participatory design for research on youth, safety and well-being. Journal of Youth Studies 19(3): 305–318.

25.

Corney

Williamson

Holdsworth

, et al. (2020) Approaches to Youth Participation in Youth and Community Practice: A Critical Dialogue. Melbourne: Youth Worker Association.

26.

Council of Europe (N.D.) About Intercultural Cities, https://www.coe.int/en/web/interculturalcities/about

27.

Critchley

(2004) On Humour. Routledge: Taylor & Francis eBooks A-Z.

28.

Department for Communities and Local Government/National Community Forum (2008) Guidance on Meaningful Interaction: How Encouraging Positive Relationships Between People Can Help Build Community Cohesion. London: Department for Communities and Local Government/National Community Forum.

29.

Dovidio

Glick

Rudman

(2005) On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years after Allport. John Wiley and Sons.

30.

Farmer

Cotta

Hartung

, et al. (2021) Social connection 101 [Report]. Social Innovation Research Institute (SUT). https://doi.org/10.25916/sfn8-km66.

31.

Farrugia

Wood

(2017) Youth and Spatiality: Towards Interdisciplinarity in Youth Studies. New Delhi, India: Sage Publications Sage India, 209–218.

32.

Felzmann

(2009) Ethical issues in school-based research. Research Ethics 5(3): 104–109.

33.

Field

(2017) Social Capital, (3^rd edition). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203794623

34.

Flegal

Kit

Orpana

, et al. (2013) Association of all-cause mortality with overweight and obesity using standard body mass index categories: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Jama 309(1): 71–82.

35.

France

Coffey

Roberts

, et al. (2020) Youth Sociology. London, UK: Red Globe Press.

36.

Franklin

Barbosa Neves

Hookway

, et al. (2019) Towards an understanding of loneliness among Australian men: Gender cultures, embodied expression and the social bases of belonging. Journal of Sociology 55(1): 124–143.

37.

Freire

(2005) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, USA: The Continuum International Publishing Group.

38.

Gerodimos

(2018) Youth and the city: Reflective photography as a tool of urban voice. Journal of Media Literacy Education 10(1): 82–103.

39.

Goodall

(2018) ‘I felt closed in and like I couldn’t breathe’: A qualitative study exploring the mainstream educational experiences of autistic young people. Autism & Developmental Language Impairments 3: 2396941518804407.

40.

Groot

Keller

Joensen

, et al. (2022) Impact of housing conditions on changes in youth’s mental health following the initial national COVID-19 lockdown: A cohort study. Scientific Reports 12(1): 1939.

41.

Groundswell Foundation & KPMG (2022) Connections matter: A report on the impacts of loneliness in Australia. Available at: https://www.groundswellfoundation.com.au/post/connectionsmatter-a-report-on-the-impacts-of-loneliness-in-australia.

42.

Hart

(1992) Children's Participation: From Tokenism to Citizenship. Florence, Italy: UNICEF International Child Development Center.

43.

Hartworth

Simpson

Attewell

(2021) Coproduction, participation and empowerment: A participatory evaluation of a young care leavers project in prison. Probation Journal 68(1): 107–115.

44.

Henriksen

Bengtsson

(2018) Trivializing violence: Marginalized youth narrating everyday violence. Theoretical Criminology 22(1): 99–115.

45.

Holt-Lunstad

Smith

Baker

, et al. (2015) Loneliness and social isolation as risk factors for mortality: A meta-analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Science 10(2): 227–237.

46.

Karg

Cotta

Farmer

, et al. (2021) Infrastructure for social connection: researching the existing assets for creating social connectedness and identifying interventions [Report]. Social Innovation Research Institute (SUT). https://doi.org/10.25916/pzh1-rm04.

47.

Kenworthy

Turner

Hewstone

, et al. (2005) Intergroup contact: When does it work, and why? In: Dovidio

Glick

Rudman

(eds) (2005) On the Nature of Prejudice: Fifty Years After Allport. Oxford: Blackwell, 278–292.

48.

Kong

Jobson

Lin

, et al. (2022) Navigating Participatory Research: A Visual Guide. Durham, UK: Durham University. Available at: https://www.durham.ac.uk/media/durham-university/departments-/sociology/Navigating-Participatory-Research_A-Visual-Guide.pdf.

49.

Kung

Kunz

Shields

(2021) Economic aspects of loneliness in Australia. Australian Economic Review 54(1): 147–163.

50.

Leung

Brennan

Freeburn

, et al. (2022) Youth Survey Report 2022. Sydney: Mission Australia.

51.

Lim

Eres

Peck

(2019) The Young Australian Loneliness Survey: understanding Loneliness in Adolescence and Young Adulthood. Melbourne: VicHealth.

52.

Lohmeyer

Threadgold

(2023) Bullying affects: The affective violence and moral orders of school bullying. Critical Studies in Education 64(5): 479–496.

53.

Lohmeyer

Wong

(2022) Nurturing social connection and addressing loneliness in Community Centres in South Australia. Reportno. Report Number|, Date. Place Published|: Institution|.

54.

Lohmeyer

(2020a) “Keen as Fuck”: Youth participation in qualitative research as ‘parallel projects’. Qualitative Research 20(1): 39–55.

55.

Lohmeyer

(2020b) Youth and Violent Performativities: Re-Examining the Connection Between Young People and Violence. Singapore: Springer.

56.

Lohmeyer

McGregor

Wood

(2024) Youth work, youth studies, and co-design: Sustaining a dynamic nexus to progress youth participation. Journal of Applied Youth Studies 7(2): 193–210.

57.

Lohmeyer

South Australian

Youth Forum

(2025) Affective economies of loneliness in school: Bullying, violence, and undesirable social connections. Critical Studies in Education 1–20. DOI: 10.1080/17508487.2025.2555310.

58.

Loveridge

Wood

Davis-Rae

, et al. (2023) Ethical challenges in participatory research with children and youth. Qualitative Research : QR. [Online] 24(2): 391–411.

59.

Malcom

(2021) Loneliness as a downstream concern in a pandemic (and post-pandemic) world. American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education 85(4): 251–254.

60.

Malli

Ryan

Maddison

, et al. (2023) Experiences and meaning of loneliness beyond age and group identity. Sociology of Health & Illness 45(1): 70–89.

61.

Marquez

Qualter

Petersen

, et al. (2023) Neighbourhood effects on loneliness among adolescents. Journal of Public Health 45(3): 663–675.

62.

McHale

Brennan

Freeburn

, et al. (2023) Youth Survey Report 2023. Sydney: Mission Australia.

63.

McWhirter

Besett-Alesch

Horibata

, et al. (2002) Loneliness in high risk adolescents: The role of coping, self-esteem, and empathy. Journal of Youth Studies 5(1): 69–84.

64.

Meloni

(2020) The limits of freedom: Migration as a space of freedom and loneliness among Afghan unaccompanied migrant youth. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 46(2): 423–438.

65.

Moore

Fardghassemi

Joffe

(2023) Wellbeing in the city: Young adults’ sense of loneliness and social connection in deprived urban neighbourhoods. Wellbeing, Space and Society 5: 100172.

66.

Neves

Baecker

(2022) Mixing methods and sciences: A longitudinal cross-disciplinary mixed methods study on technology to address social isolation and loneliness in later life. Journal of Mixed Methods Research 16(1): 88–113.

67.

Neves

Sanders

Kokanović

(2019) “It's the worst bloody feeling in the world”: Experiences of loneliness and social isolation among older people living in care homes. Journal of Aging Studies 49: 74–84.

68.

Oldenburg

(2010) The character of third places. In: Orum

Neal

(eds) Common Ground? : Readings and Reflections on Public Space. New York: Routledge, 50–58.

69.

Orton

(2009) What Works in Enabling Cross-Community Interactions? Perspectives on Good Policy and Practice. London: Department for Communities and Local Government/National Community Forum.

70.

O’Sullivan

Burns

Leavey

, et al. (2021) Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on loneliness and social isolation: A multi-country study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18(19): 9982.

71.

Perlman

Peplau

(1981) Towards a social psychology of loneliness. In: Duck

Gilmour

(eds) Personal Relationships: Relationships in Disorder. London: Academic Press, 31–56.

72.

Prohaska

Burholt

Burns

, et al. (2020) Consensus statement: Loneliness in older adults, the 21st century social determinant of health? BMJ open 10(8): e034967.

73.

Putnam

(2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.

74.

Rawlings

(2019) ‘It's not bullying’, ‘it's just a joke’: Teacher and student discursive manoeuvres around gendered violence. British Educational Research Journal 45(4): 698–716.

75.

Roof

Oleru

(2008) Public health: Seattle and king county’s push for the built environment. Journal of Environmental Health 71(1): 24–27.

76.

Russ

Petrakis

Whitaker

, et al. (2024) Co-operative inquiry: Qualitative methodology transforming research ‘about’ to research ‘with’ people. Qualitative Research (Online) 25(1): 43–64.

77.

Schnepf

Boldrini

Blaskó

(2023) Adolescents’ loneliness in European schools: A multilevel exploration of school environment and individual factors. BMC public Health 23(1): 1917.

78.

Silverman

(2006) Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analyzing Talk, Text and Interaction. London: Sage.

79.

Slattery

Saeri

Bragge

(2020) Research co-design in health: A rapid overview of reviews. Health Research Policy and Systems 18(1): 1–13.

80.

Smithsimon

(2010) Dispersing the crowd: Bonus plazas and the creation of public space. In: Orum

Neal

(eds) Common Ground? : Readings and Reflections on Public Space. New York: Routledge, 50–58.

81.

Strega

(2005) The view from the poststructural margins. In: Brown

Strega

(eds) Research as Resistance. Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press, 199–235.

82.

Taylor

Bogdan

DeVault

(2015) Introduction to Qualitative Research Methods: A Guidebook and Resource. ProQuest Ebook Central: John Wiley & Sons.

83.

Thornberg

(2011) ‘She’s weird!’—The social construction of bullying in school: A review of qualitative research. Children & Society 25(4): 258–267.

84.

United Nations (1989) United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. New York: United Nations.

85.

Van den Hoonaard

(2011) The seduction of ethics: Transforming the social sciences. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

86.

Victor

Mansfield

Kay

, et al. (2018) An overview of reviews: the effectiveness of interventions to address loneliness at all stages of the life-course. Reportno. Report Number|, Date. Place Published|: Institution|.

87.

Weiss

(1973) Loneliness: the Experience of Emotional and Social Isolation. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

88.

Westoby

Dowling

(2013) Theory and Practice of Dialogical Community Development: International Perspectives. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

89.

White

Wyn

Robards

(2017) Youth and Society. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.

90.

Wigfield

Turner

Alden

, et al. (2022) Developing a new conceptual framework of meaningful interaction for understanding social isolation and loneliness. Social Policy and Society 21(2): 172–193.

91.

Woolcock

(2001) The place of social capital in understanding social and economic outcomes. Isuma: Canadian Journal of Policy Research 2(1): 11–17.

92.

World Health Organization (2021) Social Isolation and Loneliness Among Older People: Advocacy Brief. Geneva: World Health Organisation. Available at: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240030749.

93.

Worsley

Harrison

Corcoran

(2021) The role of accommodation environments in student mental health and wellbeing. BMC public Health 21: 1–15.

94.

Wyn

Lantz

Harris

(2011) Beyond the ‘transitions’ metaphor: Family relations and young people in late modernity. Journal of Sociology 48(1): 3–22.

95.

Wyn

White

(1997) Rethinking Youth. London: Sage.

96.

Yang

Petersen

Qualter

(2022) Undesirable social relations as risk factors for loneliness among 14-year-olds in the UK: Findings from the millennium cohort study. International Journal of Behavioral Development 46(1): 3–9.

97.

Yeager

Steiger

(2013) Applied geography in a digital age: The case for mixed methods. Applied Geography 39: 1–4.

98.

Yoneyama

(2015) Theorizing school bullying: Insights from Japan. Confero: Essays on Education, Philosophy and Politics 3(2): 120–160.

99.

Yoneyama

Naito

(2003) Problems with the paradigm: The school as a factor in understanding bullying (with special reference to Japan). British Journal of Sociology of Education 24(3): 315–330.

‘We need the vibes’: Co-designing safe spaces to talk about loneliness with young people

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Loneliness and young people

Dominant approaches

Contemporary alternatives

Co-design with young people

Relationships

Space

Developing relationships

Recruitment

Co-analysis

Spaces supporting connection: The negotiation of consent

Bumping spaces for established connections

Finding flow and the right vibes

Spatial constraints on consent in loneliness research with young people

Unwanted spatial connections

Strategies for withdrawing consent

Changing the space

Conclusion

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Funding

Declaration of conflicting interests

Author Biographies

References