Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This article aims to contribute to youth justice policy making for rural Australia. We use Doel-Mackaway’s rights-based model for the participation of First Nations young people in public decision-making to critically reflect on No Dramas, a participatory action research project conducted in regional Queensland. The project involved young people cocreating community justice and health messages with a creative arts team. On reflection, we conclude that the No Dramas design and implementation supported the realisation of young people’s rights. To achieve a rights-based approach, youth justice research must be approached as a social justice activity in and of itself.

Keywords

co-production participatory research regional Australia rights-based approach rural youth justice young people

Introduction

Australia’s shameful history of the forced removal of First Nations¹ children under assimilation policies has had a devastating impact on its First Nations people. One of the long-term ramifications of those policies is ongoing high incarceration rates, especially for young people (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), 2022; Muirhead, 1988).

To address high incarceration rates for young people, justice-related laws, policies and practice frameworks ought to meaningfully reflect young people’s needs and perspectives. It is also essential that policy responses are evidence-based. However, supporting young people’s participation in research raises complex issues related to their rights (Doel-Mackaway, 2022: 180). Contemporary rights-based frameworks have emerged with the aim of ensuring policy decision-making processes are informed by children and young people’s perspectives (Creaney and Burns, 2023; Doel-Mackaway, 2022; Lundy, 2007; Lundy and McEvoy, 2012). Key examples include Lundy’s conceptualisation of Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in terms of ‘Space, Voice, Audience, and Influence’, which informed Ireland’s Strategy on Children and Young People’s Participation in Decision-Making (Department of Children and Youth Affairs, 2015), the Child First approach that guides the work of the youth justice system in England and Wales (Case and Browning, 2021:2) and, most recently, Holly Doel-Mackaway’s (2022) model, which focuses on the participation of First Nations children and young people in Australia.

Strategies for increasing the participation of First Nations young people in research and policy carry particular importance in rural Australia. Approximately 59 per cent of First Nations people live in rural Australia, compared to 28 per cent of Australia’s overall population (Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), 2022). Within juvenile justice systems, most Indigenous young offenders reside in rural Australia, whereas most non-Indigenous young offenders reside in urban Australia (Butcher et al., 2019).

Young people living in regional Australia face complex challenges: limited access to health services, lower rates of educational attainment and employment and higher rates of tobacco and alcohol use (ABS, 2022). They are more likely to suffer social exclusion, which is associated with poor mental health and may lead to disengagement with school or work (Filia et al., 2023). For young Australians, rates of detention and community-based supervision rise with remoteness (AIHW, 2023). As such, the potential of a rights-based approach to rural youth justice research is twofold. First, it recognises First Nations peoples in rural communities and justice systems through the application of culturally centred research methods. Second, it addresses the intersectional barriers to participation that First Nations and non-First Nations young people in rural areas face. This potential points to the need for the application of a rights-based model to optimise participation in policy development. Against this background, this article seeks to assess the potential of Doel-Mackaway’s model in regional Australia. It also aims to support researchers to implement a rights-based approach in this area (Lundy and McEvoy, 2011).

This article considers the potential of rights-based research methods in rural Australia through a case study of a recent rural youth justice project conducted by the authors: No Dramas: participatory action research using applied theatre to enable youth-led communication on health and justice priorities (No Dramas). In this project, the key right at play was the right to participate, as set out in Article 12(1) of the CRC:

State parties shall assure the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child.

This right is central to Doel-Mackaway’s research participation framework. We assess the extent to which No Dramas aligned with Doel-Mackaway’s rights-based model, and the consequences, for the project and its outcomes, of this alignment. Our analysis offers guidance for the implementation of rights-based research methods when conducting rural youth justice research with integrated First Nations and non-First Nations research participant cohorts.

The article begins with a brief discussion on the rise of the co-production movement in youth justice, an overview of Australia’s approach to human rights and governance of research involving human subjects, and a brief description of the No Dramas project. These sections are followed by a methodology section. We subsequently present each of Doel-Mackaway’s model’s five key principles and critically reflect on No Dramas according to those principles. Although the No Dramas project’s reach extended beyond First Nations participants, we conclude that our research intent, design and praxis aligned strongly with Doel-Mackaway’s model, and that the application of this model in rural areas offers benefits consistent with the model’s sought outcomes. The participatory, co-production framework supported rural young people to engage in constructive experiences of autonomy. This is encouraging as it points to structurally marginalised young people’s capacity to influence policy and decision-making in priority areas if given the chance. Finally, we make suggestions for future research in youth justice, drawing on the challenges we encountered and positive outcomes.

Background

Young people’s participation in justice policy and practice: The co-production movement

Traditionally, justice interventions have positioned young people² as objects of intervention. According to this orthodoxy, once a young person’s deviant behaviour is detected by authorities, they are funnelled into the justice system and subjected to decision-making by those in power. Young offenders typically face multifaceted challenges in their lives, including neglect and/or abuse by those in trusted positions of power, problematic substance use and related health issues, difficulties at school and unemployment (Cunneen et al., 2016: 174; Duke et al., 2023). By taking a reductionist approach, traditional justice interventions address only one aspect of the complex problems faced by young individuals in conflict with the law, while disregarding others (Case et al., 2020). They also marginalise and neglect young people’s voices (Duke et al., 2023).

The recent emergence of the ‘co-production movement’ in criminal justice has seen the dynamic described above start to shift (Burns and Creaney, 2023; Youth Justice Board, 2016). Co-production refers to working with young people ‘in equal partnership and for equal benefit’ (Johns et al., 2023: 4). The implications for youth justice policy and practice include that each young person is supported to actively collaborate with justice professionals to identify and develop strategies to address the challenges they face. In Australia, this thinking is evident in initiatives like Queensland’s Murri court, whose aims include facilitating positive outcomes for First Nations offenders, victims, affected families and the community (Morgan and Louis, 2010: 8).

Co-production of justice strategies has the potential to address the failings of the reductionist approach. Young people possess an in-depth understanding of the nature of their own problems (Smithson et al., 2021). Supporting young people to voice their perspectives in decision-making processes related to case management in the justice system improves the likelihood of successful rehabilitation (Creaney, 2014) and their reintegration into society (Creaney, 2014). Supporting young peoples’ participation in law and policy development is also likely to provide important opportunities for constructive experiences of autonomy and empowerment.

Given the early state of the co-production movement, there is scant literature examining the co-production of justice interventions involving young people. Notable examples include Burns’ (2019) study on co-producing policing, Smithson and Jones’ (2021) attempt to establish participatory youth practices and Day et al.’s (2023) proposal for co-producing trauma-informed youth justice. Our objective is to build on existing work by presenting a case study involving young people collaborating with a team of actors and videographers to develop peer-based justice and health messages.

Our research aligns with the co-production literature, though our focus is on prevention and targeting young people before they are involved in the justice system. The association between justice system involvement and future offending, primarily attributed to the negative labelling effect (Motz et al., 2020; Wiley and Esbensen, 2016), points to the importance of working in the preventive sphere. Consistent with the co-production literature, we endeavoured to establish a strategy in which young people owned the process and content (Shier et al., 2012), that transferred power and choice to them (McNeish, 1999), and aligned participation with the realisation of human rights (Lundy and McEvoy, 2012) and connections with peers on health and justice issues. As young people have often grown up using technology and connect with one another through this medium, there were synergies between co-production, the use of technology and capacity for ownership of the productive activity (Kral, 2010: 6).

Australia’s rights framework and young people’s participation in research

The participation of young people in research sits at the juncture of child protection in its preventive sense, and broader principles underpinning the ethical conduct of human research. In Australia, young people’s rights forms one thread of a larger human rights narrative about a nation yet to implement a framework consistent with its status as an economically advanced democracy.

Australia is a federation of six states and two territories. While Queensland,³ Victoria⁴ and the Australian Capital Territory⁵ have enacted human rights statute, Australia has no federal human rights legislation. The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) (2022: 86) has noted that the current lack of legal protection impacts on many socially excluded groups, including children. Although Australia is a signatory to the CRC, there remains an ‘implementation gap’ (AHRC, 2011). For example, the adoption of the CRC into domestic child-related legislation is not comprehensive (Doel-Mackaway, 2022: 60).

Australia’s colonial history is structured by laws and policies that imposed externally defined ideas of ‘welfare’ and welfare practices on First Nations people, supporting chronic injustice and entrenched racism. These welfare-based laws, policies and practices were inconsistent with human rights standards (Doel-Mackaway, 2022: 183). The traditional welfare approach has underpinned human rights violations in a range of governance domains, including the justice sector (Cunneen et al., 2016; O’Brien and Fitz-Gibbon, 2018). The denial of freedom incarceration entails means that protecting the rights of young people, who have either entered Australia’s justice system or are at risk of entering it, ought to be at the forefront of the nation’s human rights agenda. Supporting young First Nations people in realising their human rights is also essential to the broader goal of decolonising justice (Blagg and Anthony, 2019; Butcher et al., 2022).

In Australia, research involving human participants is governed by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) under constitutive statute.⁶ Under the NHMRC scheme, ‘primary responsibility for ensuring the integrity of research lies with individual researchers and institutions’ (NHMRC, 2018a: 1). Approvals for research are governed by Human Research Ethics Committees located in universities and other research institutes. The Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research (the Code) (NHMRC, 2018a) and National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (National Statement) (NHMRC, 2023) provide the framework for research conduct. These documents apply to all research involving humans. In addition, for research involving First Nations people, the AIATSIS Code of Ethics for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research (AIATSIS, 2020: 12) is underpinned by several principles: indigenous self-determination, indigenous leadership, impact and value, sustainability and accountability. These principles acknowledge the rights of First Nations people in research activities which may concern them and facilitate the engagement of First Nations people. The responsibilities of researchers and institutions when carrying out research are clearly articulated. The NHMRC’s (2018b) Ethical Conduct in Research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and Communities: Guidelines for Researchers and Stakeholders and Keeping Research on Track II gives researchers further guidance when working with First Nations communities (AIATSIS, 2020: 5).

The National Statement refers to the ‘best interests of the child’ and thus mirrors CRC Article 3.1 (NHMRC, 2023: 69). However, there is no explicit reference to the CRC in the National Statement (NHMRC, 2023) or the Code (NHMRC, 2018a). Instead, organisations and researchers working with children (where ‘child’ is defined as every human being under the age of 18 years) are required to implement the National Principles for Child Safe Organisations (AHRC, 2018). Under Principle 2, young people are to be ‘informed about their rights, participate in decisions affecting them and . . . [to be] taken seriously’ (AHRC, 2018: 10), reflecting CRC Article 12(1).

Case study: No Dramas project design, implementation and outcomes

No Dramas combined applied theatre methods with the ‘street law’ concept of community legal education (Blackburn, 2023: 87) to create a frame to invite participants to co-develop, enact, produce and disseminate theatrical vignettes or skits addressing priority topics in health and justice. The topic priorities were identified from data collected via a series of youth forums. The initial data, gathered through drama activities and open-ended group discussion, used ‘LawToks’ pilot videos as a springboard. The data were thematically coded for priorities as expressed by participants:

Community behaviour, law and health;

Interactions with legal processes and police; and

Communication and information on rights and responsibilities.

The project adopted a participatory action research (PAR) framework involving three groups: young people, a creative team and an academic research team. Sixty-eight young people were recruited to the project via four community organisations. These organisations and their precise demographics cannot be specified for participant confidentiality reasons. All provided education or community support and services, most commonly for young people aged 12–18. A substantial majority of participants were consequently aged 12–18. This age range falls within the CRC Article 1, which defines child as ‘every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier’. It also coincides with the sector of the population referred to as ‘young people’ or ‘youth’ in justice policy and practice (AIHW, 2024b).

For participant safety reasons, no data were recorded on any participant’s specific interactions with youth justice processes. The organisations through which participants were recruited support young people with backgrounds of disadvantage, trauma and disengagement from mainstream education. They also work extensively with First Nations young people. Participants were as a result demographically at greater risk of encountering youth justice processes (AIHW, 2024a).

The project provided resources and a forum within which young people were able to co-create social media video messages. Justice matters raised through the PAR process were as follows:

Young peoples’ responses when approached by police officers;

Communication between young people and police officers;

Online harassment; and

Substance abuse.

Youth participants collaborated with a creative team of young adults, a majority of whom were aged 18–24. The creative team comprised two First Nations and two non-First Nation actors, and a First Nations videographer. The academic research team designed and facilitated project implementation, administered the project, ensured ethical compliance, and collected and analysed data.

No Dramas centred on ‘voice’: giving young people the opportunity to be heard on the priority issues noted above. We acknowledge that Lundy’s (2007) work, as integrated into Doel-Mackaway’s model, includes Voice, though extends to Space, Audience, and Inﬂuence, a point that we consider in our reflection. The dramatic processes integrated in No Dramas provided substantive information and education to the participant youth researchers, peers and the broader community. At the same time, the participatory framework gave an avenue for participants to voice their perceptions of and experiences related to health and justice. Participant voices were expressed through the creation of video material and integrated into the findings that addressed the research question: What communication practices aimed at improving justice, health and well-being outcomes best align with young peoples’ lived experience and priorities?

Participant experience and engagement

Participants’ contributions to No Dramas were diverse and extensive. Participants discussed various experiences of interacting with police. Their reactions to police officers approaching them varied from running away to crying. For example, one participant explained ‘[s]ome of my friends were smoking vees [vapes] at the skate park and the police showed up and tried to arrest them and they just ran away’. Another recalled,

I’ve had multiple street cheques. One time I was just walking down the street with friends and a copper came by and pulled over and started asking questions and I thought, what do I do? And I just started bawling my eyes out.

Youth participants noted a connection between substance use and police interaction. As one participant recounted,

. . . then the cops rocked up and they just started yelling at us saying ‘you guys need to F* off, pack all this shit up’. There was only one cop car there to start. At the end of it there was about 15 cop cars. I feel that if they’d just come down and not accuse[d us] . . . they would have got more what they wanted. Because we were under the influence too. . . . I wish I was more in control because I did feel bad at the time for what I was doing - going off, but at the same time they’ve got the profession, they’ve got the jobs. That’s the only thing I think they could’ve done better is the way they spoke to us . . . I think it would have gone better (if we were adults). Everyone was arrested by the end of the night.

Another participant explained that one of the project’s short-form videos reminded them of previous experiences involving police, ‘Just even sittin’ at shops . . . and then the police come around the corner and everyone gets up. Yeah, there’s aggression and people running away. Yeah, then suddenly there’s like 30 cop cars’. Upon watching the police interaction video, another participant said, ‘I wouldn’t respond to police like that’.

The PAR process also collected data from the project’s creative team of young adults. One actor reported that ‘comedy makes the young people more self-motivated to understand the message, to explore the topic more’. This observation was echoed by one of the youth participants: ‘it [comedy] gives you the direction and then you explore the rest. That’s how I learned in school’. Another actor recalled that ‘working with young people was good, they just come out with ideas and say what they want, it’s not filtered . . . which is what we wanted . . . they gave us so many ideas’. The result was a collaborative process of video creation:

it was a challenge to find and write material around the topics. The live GTA [Grand Theft Auto] video came from listening to the young people talk about police and authority figures. [We] blended with them saying they play GTA and COD [Call of Duty]. They felt that was the video that brought it all together.

One member of the creative team summarised this process as ‘working together as young people, with young people’. Another stated that ‘listening to their stories helps us to tell their stories’. Another actor noted, ‘It was so great talking with the youth to find out what trends are happening. And then using those trends and combining them with the issues that we wanted to bring awareness to. They gave us so many good ideas’.

Method

Our critical reflection method (Fook, 2011) involved the analysis of project data related to the project design, implementation and outcomes considered in the light of the Doel-Mackaway principles. The data relied upon are project planning documents, research reference group feedback, youth forum data, the project’s youth engagement framework and observations, applied theatre/creative processes and the project’s social media outputs and final report. We also drew on project outcomes to identify whether the project design and implementation supported the exercise of rights related to ‘participation’.

To ensure the critical reflection conveys a sense of immediacy, the analysis and discussion section takes the form of a ‘call and response’, in which the explication of each of Doel-Mackaway’s (2022) model’s five key principles is followed by our critical reflections. Important lessons on the application of Doel-Mackaway’s model to youth justice research can be drawn from assessing the project’s alignment with that model, and the consequences of that alignment.

Reflection and Discussion

While several CRC articles are relevant to conducting human research,⁷ Article 12 is at the core of the Doel-Mackaway (2022) model (p. 184), along with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) Article 19.⁸ The Doel-Mackaway (2022) model integrates Australian First Nations research methodologies (p. 181) and Lundy’s (2007) four pillars of children’s participation: Space, Voice, Audience and Inﬂuence (p. 927). In incorporating the Lundy pillars, it reflects recent developments in other common law jurisdictions. For example, in the United Kingdom, the Child First approach promotes ‘non-criminalising and collaborative practices that are socially inclusive’ and rights-based (Case and Browning, 2021; Creaney and Burns, 2023: 2). Child First ‘collaborative participatory practice’ views young people as ‘capable co-producers’ of decisions and of Child First Justice (Burns and Creaney, 2023). The Doel-Mackaway model’s five interrelated elements are discussed below. Elements 1–3 lay the foundations for inviting young people to participate in research-based activities (Doel-Mackaway, 2022: 183).

Element 1: Adopt a child rights-based approach

Lundy and McEvoy (2012) explain that three principles set out in the ‘Stamford’ statement (United Nations, 2003) guide ‘rights-based’ activities. First, activities should realise human rights and second, be guided by human rights standards. Third, they should contribute to ‘duty-bearers’ capacity in meeting their obligations and of rights-holders to claim their rights. In short, research both in process and outcome ought to progress the realisation of young people’s rights (Lundy and McEvoy, 2012: 78). In this regard, the phrase ‘duty bearers’ refers to governments and non-government organisations involved in programme work, legislation and policy development (Doel-Mackaway, 2022: 185; Lundy and McEvoy, 2012: 78, 130). Contemporary law and policy development are often informed by research findings, and there are strong links between government funding and research (Lundy and McEvoy, 2012: 130). On that basis, the notion of ‘duty bearers’ can be reasonably extended to research institutions and to the practice of research under Australia’s governance framework. In Doel-Mackaway’s (2022) view, no matter who is making the inquiry, the engagement of young people in formal processes to elicit their views amounts to ‘social research’ (p. 200).

Right-based approaches aim to ‘strengthen government capacity to embed human rights in practice, policy, and legislation and to support rights-holders realise their rights as set out in international law’ (Doel-Mackaway, 2022: 186–187; Lundström Sarelin, 2007: 477, 483). Young people’s participation must be part of law and policy development (Doel-Mackaway, 2022: 185, 187). Element 1 of the Doel-Mackaway model highlights the suitability of a ‘convergence’ research approach (Ray, 2012) which draws on Western and Indigenous methodologies. On this point Doel-Mackaway (2022) acknowledges the model’s ‘limitations where non-Indigenous researchers implement Indigenous research methods’ (pp. 198–199).

Reflection element 1

Both in its aims and execution, our project was directed towards realising young people’s rights. In this regard, the No Dramas approach can be separated according to the project’s substantive and procedural aspects. While formal justice is achieved (or not) in institutions structured by the rules of legal interpretation and state authority, social justice is often constituted by parallel procedural and substantive dimensions achieved and realised beyond the realms of juridical and state power. For the young participants of this project, the starting point for engagement was the correlation between knowledge of rights and justice outcomes. Knowledge of, for example, rights to request or withhold information during interactions with police is essential to exercising those procedural rights, but may also have a significant impact on the substantive outcomes of those interactions. In this sense, the project can be understood as working towards shifting research from a pursuit preoccupied with the generation of new knowledge to a substantive contributor to social justice in ways that foster and support the lived expression of human rights.

No Dramas sought to build on the initial value of information by diversifying what was classified as information. A bilateral process of research, embedded in the project’s participatory framework, placed the experiences of young participants and the formal knowledge of lawyers on equal footing. Through this approach, No Dramas identified and disseminated key information from formal sources, such as legal rights and responsibilities, to support young rights-holders in exercising those rights. The information was tailored to the communication preferences of this cohort. It also identified and disseminated youth experiences and perspectives in ways that strengthened institutional ‘duty-bearers’ capacity to meet their obligations to young people.

Alongside this outcomes-focused orientation towards young peoples’ rights, the authors adopted, and on reflection now consider essential, the integration of rights considerations in research design and implementation. Through the adoption of a PAR framework, the No Dramas’ young participants were situated as equal partners in research. Such an approach supports young people’s freedom of thought and expression. In this way, methods that support youth voices support the exercise of youth rights. Research methodology is a key element of facilitating the engagement of young people in research and subsequent policy development.

These substantive and procedural approaches led to diversification of the No Dramas project’s findings audience. Alongside social media dissemination, project findings have been recognised by government and policymakers.

Regarding the implementation of the convergence model, the No Dramas creative team and the research team included First Nations and non-First Nations members. We took a collaborative, partnership model, in which non-First Nations research team members managed their status by taking a ‘back seat’, focusing on support and facilitation of the project activities. The young participants’ communication preferences were foregrounded and drew on recognised First Nations cultural practices of storytelling and the use of humour.

Element 2: Address ethical considerations and consult with communities

Element 2 involves the need to ‘seek ethical review’, to complete preparatory activities with First Nations communities, and to minimise the impact of cross-cultural research (Doel-Mackaway, 2022: 199). Seeking ethical review involves adherence to recognised standards relating to the conduct of research involving First Nations peoples. It integrates a self-determination approach, supported by the UNDRIP (Doel-Mackaway, 2022: 201), foregrounding the interconnections between ethical research practices and First Nations’ human rights (p. 201).

Preparatory community consultation aims to seek input on the benefits and value of a programme from the community’s perspective and to give the community the opportunity to influence how participation takes place (Doel-Mackaway, 2022: 203). Consultation involves seeking prior permission to consult from Elders, community members, parents and carers, and liaison with schools and relevant agencies. Other preparatory actives may include specific engagement with the venue at which young people will participate, such as schools or youth centres (Doel-Mackaway, 2022: 202). The nature of participation should align with the circumstances of the young people most likely to be affected by the relevant law and policy development (Doel-Mackaway, 2022: 203). Non-Indigenous people must also manage how their status might impact on the participatory process, including the complexities of entering Aboriginal communities to conduct ‘outsider consultations’ (Doel-Mackaway, 2022: 203).

Reflection element 2

The youth justice focus of No Dramas highlights the importance of ethical safeguards in research co-produced with young people. Alongside strategies for minimising harm and vulnerabilities that must be embedded in all research, the subject matter of criminal justice introduces new dimensions of ethical risk that arise from the possibility of participant disclosure. Consideration of opportunities presented to participants to disclose incriminating information must be integrated into ethical review. This aspect of review is different, though has similar significance in other legal contexts that may be co-researched with young people in which legal information is protected, such as child protection, which require management of participant risks associated with exposure and disclosure.

In No Dramas, the risks of disclosure were managed primarily through interdisciplinary collaboration and the integration of applied theatre methods into the project workshops. Fictionalised stories were introduced to provide the focal point of co-research. The criminal justice interactions discussed were those of characters played by actors, rather than those of participants or someone known to them. Applied theatre research processes also managed risks of exposure by implementing a ‘drama spiral’, beginning all sessions with non-substantive fictionalisation and progressively moving towards the core subject matter of the research (Baim, 2017).

In contrast to the substantive complexity of ethical conduct in socio-legal co-research with young people, the process for safeguarding these standards is familiar to academic researchers. Ethical review is embedded in university research practices, establishing a natural alignment between Doel-Mackaway’s model and research conducted out of universities. Universities also provide an easily accessed resource for diverse expertise such that, as in No Dramas, a research reference group can be appointed to oversee the project’s development.

Community consultation is also familiar to research conducted out of universities. Within Doel-Mackaway’s framework, however, the transfer of control in the research process requires additional steps, to enable community partners to participate as collaborators, rather than mere contributors. Academic researchers are accustomed to setting research questions, and then consulting community partners within the bounds of that research agenda: asking for their perspective on a defined set of issues. A collaborative co-research process involves re-opening research questions in partnership with community members.

No Dramas pursued community consultation in a manner that, retrospectively, aligns closely with Doel-Mackaway’s model. The complexities of the researchers’ outsider status were mitigated as the project was initiated by community partners and developed through ongoing PAR cycles. Participants were recruited via these organisations so the need for outsider intrusion was minimised. Collaboration with youth participants regarding research questions had a significant impact on the project, which was initially conceived with a focus on youth justice, but subsequently expanded to examine health–justice intersections in response to youth participant observations. These processes were supported by the non-First Nations researchers’ awareness that they brought a western lens and by the critical reflection that informed the project design and implementation.

Element 3: Undertake preparatory activities with children and seek consent

Element 3 raises the issue of power imbalances and their effect on freedom to consent. It highlights the complexities and sensitivities in seeking ‘free, prior and informed consent’ and the care required to ensure that young people are supported to participate meaningfully (Doel-Mackaway, 2022: 208). This is pertinent given the ‘history of Western research involving Indigenous people being carried out without the appropriate involvement of Indigenous people in the research process and without obtaining free, prior and informed consent’ (Doel-Mackaway, 2022: 208). Hence, young people, and their significant others need to know the purpose, scope and nature of the proposed research (Doel-Mackaway, 2022, 208). There are a variety of ways to seek consent, such as pre-consent activities with young people, their parents and carers. These activities may also include teachers, health professionals and youth support workers (Doel-Mackaway, 2022: 209). Consent must also be ongoing (Doel-Mackaway, 2022: 209). Against this background, consent processes must also acknowledge and respect young people’s agency. While initial consent is sought from community, parents and significant agencies, it is essential to engage in direct discussions with young people about consent. These direct conversations may not involve parents or carers (Doel-Mackaway, 2022: 209). Finally, it is important to reiterate throughout the process that participation is voluntary, and that young people are free to withdraw from participation without consequence (Doel-Mackaway, 2022: 210).

Reflection element 3

When situating Doel-Mackaway’s (2022) model of youth engagement into academic research, the process of obtaining informed consent is complex. Navigating the rigorous ethics requirements of universities in research with young people on youth justice requires a nuanced approach to both determining the characteristics of informed consent in this context and obtaining that consent. Applying for university ethics approval when the research involves the participation of First Nations young people is extensive. Additional accountability is scrutinised via a set of questions which address community consultation and the participation of First Nations people in the research process.

At the heart of this complexity is the deemed capacity of young people to consent to research. A focus on the vulnerability of young people, particularly First Nations young people, risks excluding those young people from contributing to research and policy. At the same time, age and vulnerability must be recognised as important factors affecting young people’s capacity to provide free and informed consent. Who can give consent will also depend, in addition to participant characteristics, on the characteristics of the study.

Doel-Mackaway’s (2022) model of youth participation aids in navigating this complexity and has the potential to expand how universities approach research with young people in contexts such as youth justice. A focus on risks of conducting research is fundamental. However, recognition of young people’s rights to participation brings into focus the risks of not conducting research. These are acute in contexts such as youth justice, where the impact of policy on young people is high, and the existing participation of young people in policymaking is low (Goldson et al., 2020).

In determining the boundaries of ethical participation in the No Dramas project, attention was given to the power dynamics of the research process and the substantive youth justice content of the research. The complexity and potential impact of the project’s substantive content was considered. This was taken together with the social media framing of the research, with which youth participants were found to be highly familiar.

Key to consistency with Doel-Mackaway’s (2022) rights-oriented approach is confirming that consent is continued and providing opportunities to withdraw. Our approach in No Dramas was to use a forum that would optimise participant freedom to participate or withdraw as they saw fit. Workshops were conducted in community spaces known to and held by youth participants and community partners. Routes for easy exit were maintained. Support staff from community partners attended to assist if required.

Element 4: Seek children’s views in safe, child friendly and culturally appropriate ways

Element 4 emphasises the use of methods such as yarning, a cultural discussion practice, and using technology to ensure the location at which participation takes place is friendly and engaging (Doel-Mackaway, 2022: 211). Rights-based research will engage with participants in ways that are meaningful, appropriate and enjoyable for them and participation must offer something to young people (Doel-Mackaway, 2022: 212). The focus here is on engagement and young participants having control of the research process, methods and interpretation of data. Realising a right-based approach includes addressing the unavoidable power differentials between the adults and young people involved. Addressing power differentials requires ongoing attention to these differences to mitigate their impact (Doel-Mackaway, 2022: 216). As part of this, the position of adults as the knower and expert is dismantled to allow young people to express their ideas and communicate freely, and to exert influence on the process (Doel-Mackaway, 2022: 216–217).

Methods of engagement are adapted to young people’s preferred, and culturally appropriate, forms of communication (Doel-Mackaway, 2022: 217). Examples noted by Doel-Mackaway include yarning circles in place of the formal interviews typical of ‘Western research’ and using technology to create peer-to-peer video interviews, and photography using mobile devices (Doel-Mackaway, 2022: 218–219). The key is to create processes by which First Nations young people can realise the intent of Article 12 of the CRC while also creating a record of participation (Doel-Mackaway, 2022: 219).

Young people connect with one another through technology, especially via social media. The use of technology can have a ‘profound, often enriching, impact on Indigenous young people’s lives’ (Doel-Mackaway, 2022: 219–220). As Kral (2010) observes, while once institutional locations and non-Indigenous authorities may have dominated, ‘control of technology’ has shifted towards young people, who are ‘initiating productive activity in ways that were previously unimaginable’ (p. 6; see also Doel-Mackaway, 2022: 220). In summary, this element aims to ensure that young people actively participate in creative and meaningful ways that allow them to express themselves and their ideas freely and creatively (Doel-Mackaway, 2022: 220–221). It also reiterates the need to ensure that activities are conducted with known and trusted Indigenous adults (Doel-Mackaway, 2022: 221). These figures may be parents, teaching assistants or other trusted workers within the community.

Reflection element 4

No Dramas engaged with First Nations and non-First Nations young people in regional Queensland. Reflection on the project demonstrates how cultural safety and appropriateness can be embedded in research methodologies, as well as their implementation. It also demonstrates how cultural considerations can improve research outcomes.

Ensuring that research is culturally safe and appropriate for participants and communities must inform the conduct of research. However, it should additionally inform the design of the research and choice of methodology. Convergence methodology integrates Western and Indigenous ways of collecting and disseminating data (Ray, 2012). The integration of storytelling into the No Dramas research design supported this convergence. Incorporating First Nations traditional storytelling practices into Western research methods supported insightful, capacity-building and culturally appropriate research (Datta, 2018). It enabled relationships and connections both between Western and Indigenous partners in the research, and Western and First Nations research methodology.

Beyond convergence, reflection on the No Dramas project shows that Western research methods can be selected for their capacity to integrate with First Nations knowledge. Both PAR through theatre and the structuring of research outputs as narrative vignettes aligned with, and are compatible with, First Nations storytelling practices. Storytelling is also an effective communication tool in the legal context, through which legal scenarios can be used to convey information (Gedge, 2017).

Alongside implementing culturally appropriate and safe research practices for First Nations participants, a rights-based approach also requires consideration of research methods that align with youth communication practices. In No Dramas, structuring research outputs as social media videos supported youth participation in the research process, and youth understanding of the research outcomes. The co-produced social media, the content and form of which was determined by the young people with the creative team, was developed through a cyclic feedback and review process. These considerations were also alive in ensuring that the creative team reflected the cohort. The creative team members were aged in their early to mid-20s. As part of the project implementation, the team was trained in the application of the drama spiral. This supported the establishment of rapport, enabled collaboration and provided safe guidance of the workshops to avoid the participants sharing personal or possibly incriminating experiences. Young people working collaboratively in the workshops also avoided a possible social hierarchy of an older adult facilitating the workshops.

Element 5: Ensure benefit and reciprocity

Element 5 provides that there should be demonstrable benefits to First Nations young people, their parents, carers and the community (Doel-Mackaway, 2022: 223–224). Doel-Mackaway (2022) identifies this as a key objective of the model, though notes that it is ‘perhaps the most challenging element’ to implement (p. 223). The principle of mutual benefit arising from research and reciprocity is informed by the AIATSIS (2020) Code of Ethics (p. 20) and the National Statement (2023). Reciprocity is informed by the question of what young people, their parents, carers and the community gain from their participation (Doel-Mackaway, 2022: 224). At a minimum, the participatory activities should be made enjoyable and engaging via the provision and use of technology and music. Offering food is a gesture of ‘courtesy and respect’ (Doel-Mackaway, 2022: 224). Reciprocity is an ongoing dimension of research practice, involving sharing research findings with those involved, included decision-makers from preparatory consultations (Doel-Mackaway, 2022: 224–225). Having a ‘researcher, particularly a non-Indigenous researcher, in an Aboriginal community can be inconvenient, obtrusive and interfere with normal life for the people involved in the process’ (Doel-Mackaway, 2022: 224). Therefore, it is important to minimise any negative impact; the researcher ought to ‘try to be of use’ (Fasoli and James, 2007: 39 quoted in Doel-Mackaway (2022: 224)), for example, through an in-kind contribution (Doel-Mackaway, 2022: 224). People can also be asked how they would like to be thanked for their participation. This may take the form of making a movie from the research video material and a celebratory event (Doel-Mackaway, 2022: 246–247).

Reflection element 5

The No Dramas community consultation and PAR methods supported reciprocity by ensuring ‘that the topic being studied is truly one that the community wants investigated’ (Maiter et al., 2008: 311–312). Our narrative vignette approach also supported reciprocity in the research by engaging participants in research activities and outputs designed to inform or challenge, and entertain, as well as data collection and dissemination of findings. Where appropriate, humour was integrated into research processes and outputs.

In addition to integrating engaging creative processes drawn from applied theatre research methodology, No Dramas sought to offer benefits to participants by integrating community education strategies into its programme. Knowledge dissemination aids reciprocity, supporting both effective outputs and inclusive processes (Maiter et al., 2008). No Dramas disseminated knowledge in support of community education. It offered information on issues identified in the research process, such as how to interact with police officers, in accessible and easily understood formats. In doing so, it served a dual purpose of participatory research and community education.

Knowledge dissemination in support of participant reciprocity and community benefit may take the form of sharing information about the project and advocating for policy consequences for research findings. However, academic researchers, who frequently occupy dual roles of researcher and educator, may be able to utilise research processes to share subject matter knowledge. In areas such as criminal justice, this educational effort is apt to translate into improvements in capacity to exercise rights.

Implications and Conclusion

Overall, the No Dramas research design, implementation and outcomes strongly aligned with the Doel-Mackaway model. Based on our experience, we are confident that youth justice research can provide a mechanism for young participants to exercise their rights. It follows that such research can make a distinct contribution to social justice goals.

Much of the work to achieve this outcome lies in the planning and research design phase. While the need for community partnerships and collaboration in research is well recognised, our experience highlighted that this collaboration must inform research design. Thus, research design must itself assume a participatory, iterative dynamic. Relevant questions here include ‘how does the research design and implementation plan support participant empowerment and autonomy?’. Wherever feasible, as part of the planning process, the nature and location of participation will be driven by young people’s input.

Our reflection on the Doel-Mackaway model clarified the importance of grounding research design in the question of how a proposed project will support the realisation of participant rights. Institutional support for researchers to realise a rights-based approach might involve including a question ‘how does this research design facilitate the realisation of young people’s rights?’ in institutional ethics applications, with reference to the relevant CRC articles. Responses to this question, through participatory conversations with partners and participants, will influence project priorities and objectives. To support and adopt a right-based approach to research, when research is conceived of as an activity with inherent social justice aims, institutions might also consider introducing youth ethics committees. Ideally, the role of these committees would reflect the ethos and objectives of the co-production movement. These institutional strategies would support researchers, contribute to ‘duty-bearers’ capacity in meeting their obligations and of rights-holders to claim their rights, and possibly enhance the implementation of the Doel-Mackaway model for youth justice related research in rural Australia.

Finally, in terms of methodology, Doel-Mackaway’s (2022:199) intention is to advance a ‘convergence’ model which brings together Western research methods and First Nations ways of knowing. Our experience indicates that cross-cultural project teams can realise the aims of convergence methods. Decolonising justice requires cross-cultural efforts based on respectful dialogue and a participation frame in which structural power inequities are critically analysed and reconfigured to foster the realisation of rights and participant empowerment.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Department of Science, Information Technology and Innovation, Queensland Government, Grant/Award Number: YRGP003.

Ethical approval

The research project was approved by the CQUniversity Ethics Committee (Ethics Approval 0000023681).

ORCID iDs

Alexandra McEwan

Luke Price

Masahiro Suzuki

Luz Stanton

Data accessibility

The project report and project data can be accessed by contacting the first author.

Notes

Author biographies

Dr. Alexandra McEwan is a Senior Lecturer in Law at the College of Law, Criminology and Justice, CQUniversity. Her research draws on her skills in law, anthropology and health, and seeks to understand how the law mediates political power across dimensions of class, race, species membership and the natural environment. She has an extensive professional background in community development working with Australian First Nations communities.

Dr. Luke Price is a Lecturer in Law and the Head of Clinical Legal Education at the College of Law, Criminology and Justice, CQUniversity. Much of his work examines how new technologies affect legal liability, community engagement, access to justice and corporate responsibility. Luke has experience in clinical legal education and pro bono legal practice in the United States, United Kingdom and Australia.

Dr. Masahiro Suzuki is a Lecturer in Criminology at Loughborough University, UK. He was formerly a Lecturer in Criminology at the College of Law, Criminology and Justice, CQUniversity (Nov. 2019 to Apr 2024). His research interests encompass a range of topics, including restorative justice, youth offending, desistance from crime, recovery from victimisation, juvenile justice, elder crime and comparative criminology.

Dr. Vicki Pascoe is an Arrernte woman with over 20 years’ experience in tertiary education, teaching in the fields of Indigenous Australian studies, education, sociology, cultural studies and communications. She is a Post-Doctoral Research Fellow at the Manna Institute. The Manna Institute conducts research to address the complex mental health needs of regional Australia as an urgent, national social justice issue.

Dr. Linda Lorenza is a Senior Lecturer, arts practitioner and Head of Course for the Bachelor of Theatre at CQUniversity. Her professional career spans arts industry management, education policy development, research and academia. Her interdisciplinary research is predominantly associated with applied arts cutting across social innovation and change, regionality, rehabilitation and youth.

Dr. Corey Bloomfield is a Senior Lecturer at CQUniversity and a nationally accredited Initial Teacher Education Course Review panelist for the Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership (AITSL). He specialises in teaching diversity and inclusion in education across undergraduate and postgraduate initial teacher education courses. Corey’s research work in student engagement, transitions, online learning and equity in education complements his teaching of inclusive education practices.

Ms. Deborah Power is a Registered Nurse and an experienced Research Assistant specialising in qualitative data collection and analysis.

Ms. Luz Stanton is a Research Assistant at the School of Education and the Arts, CQUniversity. She has a professional background as a Performance Artist, specialising in acting and singing. Luz completed her Master’s research project on actor agency and resilience in 2024.

References

Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic).

Convention on the Rights of the Child UNTS 1577, opened for signature 20 November 1989, entered into force, 2 September 1990. Available at: https://www.info.dfat.gov.au/Info/Treaties/treaties.nsf/AllDocIDs/E123F4F71DCAE3E7CA256B4F007F2905

Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT).

Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld).

United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly, 2 October 2007 (A/RES/61/295).

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2022) Census of population and housing–Counts of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, 31 August. Available at: https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-peoples/census-population-and-housing-counts-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-australians/latest-release

Australian Human Rights Commission (2011) Information Concerning Australia and the Convention on the Rights of the Child: Australian Human Rights Commission Submission to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, August. Available at: https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/legal/information-concerning-australia-and-convention-rights-child

Australian Human Rights Commission (2018) National Principles for Child Safe Organisations. Sydney, NSW, Australia: Australian Human Rights Commission.

Australian Human Rights Commission (2022) Free and Equal: A Human Rights Act for Australia. Sydney, NSW, Australia: Australian Human Rights Commission.

10.

Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (2020) AIATSIS Code of Ethics for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research (AIATSIS). Available at: https://aiatsis.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-10/aiatsis-code-ethics.pdf

11.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2021) Australia’s youth, 25 June. Available at: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/children-youth/australias-youth/contents/introduction

12.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2022) Youth detention population in Australia 2022, 13 December. Available at: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/youth-justice/youth-detention-population-in-australia-2022/contents/summary

13.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2023) Youth justice in Australia 2021-22, 31 March. Available at: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/youth-justice/youth-justice-in-australia-2021-22/contents/summary

14.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2024a) Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Performance Framework: Summary report August 2024. Available at: https://www.indigenoushpf.gov.au/getattachment/79e5f9c5-f5b9-4a1f-8df6-187f267f6817/hpf_summary-report-aug-2024.pdf

15.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2024b) Youth justice, 10 April. Available at: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports-data/health-welfare-services/youth-justice/overview

16.

Baim

(2017) The Drama Cycle: A decision-making model for safe ethical and flexible practice when incorporating personal stories in applied theatre and performance. In: O’Grady

(ed.) Risk, Participation, and Performance Practice: Critical Vulnerabilities in a Precarious World. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 71–109.

17.

Blackburn

(2023) Qualifying work experience: Do Street Law projects provide a ‘legal service’? The Law Teacher 57(1): 84–88.

18.

Blagg

Anthony

(2019) Decolonising Criminology: Imagining Justice in a Postcolonial World. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

19.

Burns

(2019) Young people as co-producers in policing across England. An evaluation of the ‘youth commission’ on police and crime. Children & Society 33(4): 347–362.

20.

Burns

Creaney

(2023) Embracing children’s voices: Transforming youth justice practice through co-production and child first participation. In: Case

Hazel

(eds) Child First: Developing a New Youth Justice System. Cham: Springer, 333–365.

21.

Butcher

Day

Miles

Kidd

(2019) A comparative analysis of the risk profiles of Australian young offenders from rural and urban communities. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 63(14): 2483–2500.

22.

Butcher

Day

Miles

Kidd

Stanton

(2022) Developing youth justice policy and programme design in Australia. Australian Journal of Public Administration 81: 367–382.

23.

Case

Browning

(2021) Child First Justice: The Research Evidence-base [Full report]. Loughborough: Loughborough University.

24.

Case

Creaney

Coleman

Haines

Little

Worrall

(2020) Trusting children to enhance youth justice policy: The importance and value of children’s voices. Youth Voice Journal 2020: 25–40.

25.

Creaney

(2014) The benefits of participation for young offenders. Safer Communities 13(3): 126–132.

26.

Creaney

Burns

(2023) Freedom from symbolic violence? Facilitators and barriers to participatory practices in youth justice. Youth Justice 24: 31–52.

27.

Cunneen

Goldson

Russell

(2016) Juvenile justice, young people and human rights in Australia. Current Issues in Criminal Justice 28(2): 73–188.

28.

Datta

(2018) Traditional storytelling: An effective Indigenous research methodology and its implications for environmental research. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples 14(1): 35–44.

29.

Day

Malvaso

Butcher

O’Connor

McLachlan

(2023) Co-producing trauma-informed youth justice in Australia? Safer Communities 22(2): 106–120.

30.

Department of Children and Youth Affairs (2015) National Strategy on Children and Young People’s Participation in Decision-making, 2015 – 2020. Dublin: Government Publications.

31.

Doel-Mackaway

(2022) Indigenous Children’s Right to Participate in Law and Policy Development. New York: Routledge. Available at: http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/cqu/detail.action?docID=6730098

32.

Duke

Gleeson

Dabrowska

Dich Herold

Rolando

Thom

(2023) Building cultures of participation: Involving young people in contact with the criminal justice system in the development of drug interventions in the United Kingdom, Denmark, Italy and Poland. Youth Justice 23(1): 97–116.

33.

Fasoli

James

(2007) Researching remote Aboriginal children’s services: It’s all about rules. Ngoonjook: A Journal of Australian Indigenous Issues 8(4): 332–343.

34.

Filia

Teo

Brennan

Freeburn

Browne

Baker

Di Nicola

Killackey

Gao

(2023) Social Exclusion and the Mental Health of Young People: Insights from the 2022 Mission Australia Youth Survey. Sydney, NSW, Australia: Orygen Melbourne and Mission Australia.

35.

Fook

(2011) Developing critical refection as a research method. In: Higgs

Titchen

Horsfall

Bridges

(eds) Creative Spaces for Qualitative Researching: Living Research. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers, 55–64.

36.

Gedge

(2017) Bringing the drama of law into your classroom with student-led case presentations. Southern Law Journal 28: 367–385.

37.

Goldson

Cunneen

Russell

Brown

Baldry Schwartz

Briggs

(2020) Youth Justice and Penalty in Comparative Context. Routledge: London.

38.

Johns

Flynn

Hall

Spivakovsky

Turner

(2023) Co-production and Criminal Justice. Milton: Taylor & Francis Group.

39.

Kral

(2010) Plugged in: Remote Australian Indigenous youth and digital culture. CAEPR working paper no. 69/2010. Available at: https://caepr.cass.anu.edu.au/research/publications/plugged-remote-australian-indigenous-youth-and-digital-culture

40.

Lundström Sarelin

(2007) Human rights-based approaches to development cooperation, HIV/AIDS, and food security. Human Rights Quarterly 29: 460–488.

41.

Lundy

(2007) ‘Voice’ is not enough: Conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. British Educational Research Journal 33(6): 927–942.

42.

Lundy

McEvoy

(2011) Children’s rights and research processes: Assisting children to (in)formed views. Childhood 19(1): 129–144.

43.

Lundy

McEvoy

(2012) Childhood, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and Research: What constitutes a ‘rights-based’ approach? In: Freeman

(ed.) Law and Childhood Studies: Current Legal Issues. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 75–91.

44.

McNeish

(1999) Promoting participation for children and young people: Some key questions for health and social welfare organisations. Journal of Social Work Practice 13(2): 192–203.

45.

Maiter

Simich

Jacobson

Wise

(2008) An ethic for community-based participatory action research. Action Research 6(3): 305–325.

46.

Morgan

Louis

(2010) Evaluation of the Queensland Murri Court: Final Report. AIC reports technical and background paper 39. Australian Institute of Criminology. Available at: https://www.aic.gov.au/publications/tbp/tbp39

47.

Motz

Barnes

Caspi

Arseneault

Cullen

Houts

Wertz

Moffitt

(2020) Does contact with the justice system deter or promote future delinquency? Results from a longitudinal study of British adolescent twins. Criminology 58(2): 307–335.

48.

Muirhead

(1988) Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody Interim Report. Canberra, ACT, Australia: Australian Government Publishing Service.

49.

National Health and Medical Research Council (2018a) Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research. National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council and Universities Australia. Canberra, ACT, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia.

50.

National Health and Medical Research Council (2018b) Ethical Conduct in Research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples and Communities: Guidelines for Researchers and Stakeholders. National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council and Universities Australia. Canberra, ACT, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia.

51.

National Health and Medical Research Council (2023) National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council and Universities Australia. Canberra, ACT, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia.

52.

O’Brien

Fitz-Gibbon

(2018) Can human rights standards counter Australia’s punitive youth justice practices? International Journal of Children’s Rights 26(2): 197–227.

53.

Ray

(2012) Deciphering the ‘Indigenous’ in Indigenous methodologies. AlterNative: An International Journal of Indigenous Peoples 8(1): 85–98.

54.

Shier

Mendez

Centeno

Arroliga

Meyling

(2012) How children and young people influence policy-makers: Lessons from Nicaragua. Children and Society 28(1): 1–14.

55.

Smithson

Jones

(2021) Co-creating youth justice practice with young people: Tackling power dynamics and enabling transformative action. Children & Society 35(3): 348–362.

56.

Smithson

Gray

Jones

(2021) ‘They really should start listening to you’: The benefits and challenges of co-producing a participatory framework of youth justice practice. Youth Justice 21(3): 321–337.

57.

United Nations (2003) Statement of Common Understanding on a Human Rights-based Approach to Development Co-operation. Geneva: United Nations.

58.

United Nations (n.d.) Global issues: Youth. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/youth

59.

Wiley

Esbensen

F-A

(2016) The effect of police contact: Does official intervention result in deviance amplification? Crime and Delinquency 62(3): 283–307.

60.

Youth Justice Board (2016) Participation Strategy: Giving Young People a Voice in Youth Justice. London: Youth Justice Board.

Rural Youth Participation in Youth Justice Research: Towards a Rights-Based Approach

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Background

Young people’s participation in justice policy and practice: The co-production movement

Australia’s rights framework and young people’s participation in research

Case study: No Dramas project design, implementation and outcomes

Participant experience and engagement

Method

Reflection and Discussion

Element 1: Adopt a child rights-based approach

Reflection element 1

Element 2: Address ethical considerations and consult with communities

Reflection element 2

Element 3: Undertake preparatory activities with children and seek consent

Reflection element 3

Element 4: Seek children’s views in safe, child friendly and culturally appropriate ways

Reflection element 4

Element 5: Ensure benefit and reciprocity

Reflection element 5

Implications and Conclusion

Footnotes

Funding

Ethical approval

ORCID iDs

Data accessibility

Notes

Author biographies

References