Abstract
This study elucidates a rights-based participatory methodology of a qualitative research that explored the experiences with sociopolitical stress and coping strategies among Palestinian children and youth. The first author recruited and facilitated a Children and Youth Advisory Group (CYAG) of seven Palestinian adolescents (aged 13–19) from East Jerusalem, most of whom were enrolled in secondary education and demonstrated high levels of educational engagement. The Lundy Model for child participation (2007), which emphasizes Voice, Space, Audience, and Influence, guided the participatory framework. While the Model offers general principles, concrete mechanisms for involving children as co-researchers, as well as the facilitators and barriers to their meaningful engagement, remain underdeveloped. Concrete knowledge is particularly scant concerning co-researching with children belonging to marginalized ethnic groups during periods of protracted conflict and war. This article addresses that gap through a step-by-step analysis of work with the CYAG and offers novel insights into the challenges and ethical considerations in research with children during a critical period of war and restricted freedom of expression, including concerns around privacy, trust, and both legal and emotional safety. The findings underscore the value of a child’s cultural and generational expertise in shaping context-sensitive methodologies and in fostering authentic participation through power-sharing, aligning competence with advocacy, and maintaining safety without compromising spontaneity. These methodological insights aim to support researchers pursuing participatory and rights-respecting research with children in the context of conflict, oppression, and extreme marginalization.
Keywords
Introduction
Existing knowledge on participatory research with children and youth 1 faces significant gaps in understanding how to meaningfully involve children in research-related decisions and how to address the ethical implications of their active participation. Specifically, there is limited knowledge of the strategies used to include children in these processes (Montreuil et al., 2021; Shamrova & Cummings, 2017). A major challenge lies in distinguishing between children’s roles as research objects versus their roles as co-constructors of research. Furthermore, comprehensive guidelines for researchers to engage children beyond traditional participation in data collection are lacking, with significant gaps appearing particularly regarding post-data collection research activities with children, such as data analysis, producing academic outputs, and dissemination of research findings (Collins et al., 2020; Dimopoulos et al., 2024; Woodgate et al., 2018). Contextual factors that affect children’s participation, and their role in shaping research questions, selecting research designs, and interpreting data have also been insufficiently explored (Montreuil et al., 2021). Lastly, there has been limited discussion on the complexities of cross-cultural participatory research with children, particularly those living in conflictual areas, which further complicates efforts to develop inclusive and ethical participatory research frameworks. Accordingly, this methodological reflection aims to bridge these gaps in the literature.
Research on participatory approaches with children, particularly those that position them as co-researchers, has largely focused on children from privileged backgrounds or involved them only in the early stages of the research process. Most studies focused on engaging children and youth in rights-related issues, such as influencing school policies (Richards-Schuster et al., 2021), working with health service providers (Woodgate et al., 2018), family violence interventions (Dimopoulos et al., 2024), and youth participation in mental health research across high- and middle-income countries, assessing their role in decision-making (Mensa-Kwao et al., 2024). Even when frameworks for participation exist, children are rarely included in later phases such as analysis, interpretation, and dissemination (Mensa-Kwao et al., 2024). This is especially true in research on sensitive and politicized topics. Such research, particularly during wartime and armed conflicts, is notably scarce. Moreover, marginalized and oppressed children, such as those living under occupation in East Jerusalem, remain significantly underrepresented in participatory research. Palestinian children and adolescents residing in this region face complex adversities, including statelessness, limited mobility, and disinvestment by the state (Avni et al., 2022; Samman, 2021). These structural and political constraints not only shape children’s daily realities but also affect how—and whether—they are engaged meaningfully in all phases of research. The Children and Youth Advisory Group (CYAG), which is the focus of this article, was specifically established for a research project on sociopolitical stress and coping among Palestinian children and youth in East Jerusalem to ensure culturally relevant and contextually accurate data collection, analysis, and knowledge creation, reflecting their lived experiences. This participatory approach not only aligns with child rights principles but also enhances the methodological rigor and authenticity of the findings.
The Context of East Jerusalem
East Jerusalem and nearby Palestinian neighborhoods, captured by Israel during the 1967 Six-Day War, are recognized according to international law as occupied territory. About 400,000 Palestinians, or 38% of the city’s population, live there as permanent residents, not citizens, creating a “gray space” of partial inclusion. Israeli policies, since 1967, attempted to expand control over the territory by building illegal Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem, while restricting Palestinian housing permits, leading to poor infrastructure, disinvestment, and limited services. Under the “center of life” policy, Palestinians must constantly prove residency to maintain their status or risk eviction (Avni et al., 2022). The construction of the separation wall in 2002 further segregated several Palestinian neighborhoods from East Jerusalem, severely disrupting mobility and access to essential services by requiring residents to cross military checkpoints to reach the urban center (Hamayel et al., 2017; Samman, 2021). The area remains a flashpoint for tensions and disputes, with ongoing debates over sovereignty, settlement expansion, and access to holy sites.
The political and security situation in East Jerusalem, marked by instability, polarization, and excessive policing of its Palestinian residents, creates significant challenges for protecting children in general (Kovner & Shalhoub-Kevorkian, 2018) and for research in particular. Children’s daily lives are shaped by diminished educational opportunities and minimal facilities for leisure and informal activities in the public sphere. They are largely cut off from modern-city services provided to children in West Jerusalem and, when attempting to enter the City, they are likely to face increased surveillance and a sense of alienation (Tanous et al., 2023). The current Israeli war on Gaza adds further complexity when freedom of expression is restricted and there is a prevailing atmosphere of silencing and oppression. Particularly for this reason, this study represents a significant methodological innovation. To our knowledge, it is the first of its kind in Israel and Palestine, employing participatory research methods
Children’s Rights in Research
The right to participate in decision-making is fundamental to recognizing children as rights holders, as emphasized by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). This principle, enshrined in Article 12 of the UNCRC, shifts the view of children from being passive recipients of protection to active individuals with distinct rights and interests (Horgan, 2016). It applies to decisions affecting children in both private (e.g., educational placements) and collective (e.g., policy development) contexts. Recognizing children as rights holders necessitates their active involvement in decision-making processes, and this includes decisions regarding the planning, execution, and publication of research on their lives. The UNCRC’s emphasis on children’s right to participate in decision-making has underscored the necessity to develop participatory research methodologies that amplify their voices and position them as experts in their own lives, emphasizing the importance of researching
Participatory Research Methods
Participatory research methods actively involve marginalized groups, including youth, in examining issues affecting their health and well-being. These methods value diverse perspectives, foster critical thinking, and explore the social context of research questions (Kellett, 2005). Beyond gathering facts, participatory research aims to drive collective change by leveraging local knowledge and involving non-academic individuals with firsthand expertise in the research (O’Donoghue et al., 2002; Powers & Tiffany, 2006). A key approach of rights-respecting participatory research is engaging Child and Youth Advisory Groups (CYAG) as co-researchers, which integrate youth perspectives into research, foster dialogue, and empower members (Donegan et al., 2023; Lundy & McEvoy, 2012; Moreno et al., 2021). Collins et al. (2020) describe how the advisory group of children and youth progressed from minimal involvement to active participation and co-creation in research through dialogue, adaptation, and valuing their contributions. The group provided insights and recommendations that influenced the research agenda, design, methods, and ethical considerations. Building strong relationships with adult researchers fostered a sense of belonging, enabling youth to bridge divides, challenge assumptions, and promote meaningful participation throughout the process (Collins et al., 2020). Effective participatory research with youth relies on collaborative partnerships characterized by shared decision-making, mentorship, and mutual respect, with adults providing training, guidance, and support (Collins et al., 2020; Powers & Tiffany, 2006; Thomas, 2015).
Practices for rights-respecting research may include youth advisory groups refining interview questions, shaping participatory activities during data collection, contributing to presentations, and reviewing findings. Youth involvement in data analysis is enhanced by providing training, using accessible language and tools like visuals, fostering a collaborative environment, and encouraging creativity. Discussions on data implications and how the produced knowledge can be used to inform decision-making or advocate for change further help youth develop analytical skills, recognize their contributions, and feel ownership of the research (Collins et al., 2020).
The Benefits of Children and Youth Participation in Research
Engaging children and youth in research provides numerous benefits, both for young participants and the community. These include developing critical thinking, communication, and leadership skills, as well as fostering advocacy and civic engagement (Powers & Tiffany, 2006). Participation empowers young people to serve as experts on issues affecting their peers, enabling them to influence social change while preparing for active roles in democratic life (Hart, 1992; Powers & Tiffany, 2006). Importantly, intergenerational research partnerships facilitate knowledge exchange and help redress historical power imbalances that have excluded young voices from decision-making, and thus resulted in misinformed policies. When children’s perspectives are meaningfully included, research findings tend to be more relevant, contextually grounded, and actionable (Collins et al., 2020; Lundy et al., 2011). Rights-respecting research processes can also improve data quality and inform more equitable policies. Evidence from diverse contexts—including studies on homelessness, HIV prevention, and adolescent rights—demonstrates that participatory approaches not only empower young co-researchers but also enhance the reach, legitimacy, and real-world applicability of research outcomes (Collins et al., 2020; Lundy & McEvoy, 2012). In these ways, co-research contributes meaningfully to knowledge production, youth development, and social justice.
Challenges in Children and Youth Participatory Research
While the benefits are substantial, participatory research with children and youth also presents complex ethical, practical, and relational challenges. Foremost is the responsibility to ensure young participants’ safety and well-being (Bradbury-Jones & Taylor, 2015; Cuevas-Parra, 2020; Horgan, 2016). This includes obtaining informed consent from both children and guardians, maintaining confidentiality, and addressing emotional risks, especially in politically or socially sensitive contexts (Bradbury-Jones & Taylor, 2015; Cuevas-Parra, 2020; Horgan, 2016). Engaging marginalized youth—such as those living under occupation or experiencing systemic oppression—raises additional concerns. Researchers must navigate parental involvement, legal oversight, risk management, and reporting obligations, all while striving to protect young people’s agency and dignity. Despite these challenges, centering youth voices remains critical to producing ethical and impactful research (Montreuil et al., 2021; Woodgate et al., 2018).
Youth participatory research presents additional challenges, such as balancing “maximum support”—including adequate resources, institutional backing, and ensuring children have a choice in their level of involvement—with “maximum challenge” to keep young researchers motivated (Bradbury-Jones & Taylor, 2015; Powers & Tiffany, 2006). Other challenges relate to trust-building, addressing power dynamics, and adapting methodologies to suit youth engagement while managing conflicting priorities (Powers & Tiffany, 2006). Structural inequalities—both between adults and youth, and among young co-researchers themselves—can affect participation, representation, and the distribution of voice and influence. Researchers’ positionality, institutional frameworks, and adult gatekeeping may inadvertently marginalize certain youth perspectives or reproduce existing hierarchies (Collins et al., 2020; Horgan, 2016). Further, language barriers, cultural expectations, and methodological rigidity can limit young people’s full participation (Collins et al., 2020; Horgan, 2016). Practical dilemmas—such as how to fairly recognize youth contributions (e.g., co-authorship, compensation)—require careful negotiation (Bradbury-Jones & Taylor, 2015; Porter et al., 2010). These tensions are heightened when co-researching with children and youth from oppressed or marginalized populations, where distrust, surveillance, or trauma may shape participation.
Overcoming these challenges requires sustained ethical reflection, ongoing efforts to flatten power imbalances, co-constructed decision-making processes, and sensitivity to the researcher's positionality. Yet, there remains limited knowledge about the practicalities of such research and strategies to minimize these risks, particularly in sensitive contexts such as work with children living under occupation, highlighting the need for further exploration, which this article aims to address.
Daily Experiences With Sociopolitical Stress of Palestinian Adolescents in East Jerusalem: A Co-Research Journey
Palestinian children in East Jerusalem experience a distinct form of marginalization described by Tanous et al. (2023) as “unchilding”—a settler colonial process that strips them of rights, protections, and dignity as children. Living under statelessness, surveillance, and systemic violence, their daily lives are marked by chronic insecurity that undermines healthy development and restricts access to basic services. As non-citizen residents, youth confront high levels of poverty, social exclusion, and deep mistrust in Israeli institutions, further compounding their vulnerability. They navigate a politically sensitive environment marked by the threat of home demolitions, structural violence, and discrimination. They are often criminalized based on their ethnicity and face challenges linked to their age, legal status, and socioeconomic conditions (Avni et al., 2022; Kovner & Shalhoub-Kevorkian, 2018). These intersecting factors contribute to exacerbating traumatic stress, leading to long-term mental health issues, especially for children and adolescents (Cummings et al., 2017). The research, which is the subject of this methodological article, examines the unique sociopolitical stressors faced by Palestinian adolescents in East Jerusalem, exploring how these stressors shape their psychosocial adjustment and influence the coping strategies and resilience factors they employ.
This study utilized a qualitative, rights-based participatory approach grounded in the UNCRC (Lundy et al., 2011; Lundy & McEvoy, 2011). A Child and Youth Advisory Group (CYAG) was established especially for this study, which consisted of seven adolescents aged 13–19, from various East Jerusalem neighborhoods, all experiencing the same marginalization as the research population. The CYAG members actively contributed to all stages of the research, including planning, developing interview guides, data collection, evaluating findings, and interpreting results (Lundy et al., 2011; Moreno et al., 2021). Participants for the research (
Given the ethical challenges identified at every stage of the research process—some of which are underexplored in the literature—we deemed it important to describe and share how we navigated these issues at every phase, emphasizing both practical strategies and broader implications for ethical research with adolescents.
Two-Layered Ethical Approval
Initially, we sought approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) for the research, covering both our work with the CYAG and the qualitative study. The first-tier approval included a tentative research plan, stating that the final details of research questions and instruments, data collection, and analysis would be determined jointly with the CYAG and submitted for second-tier approval. The first-tier IRB approval referred to an interim interview guide, which was later revised with the CYAG’s input and resubmitted for final approval. Another revision was submitted within a few months of the work of the CYAG, to fulfill the aspiration of CYAG members to conduct interviews with professionals.
Upon receiving the first-tier ethical approval, we obtained consent from both the adolescent and their parents to join the CYAG. Adolescents were encouraged to discuss their participation as young researchers in the project with their parents. In Israel, regulations surrounding parental consent for research involving minors are stringent—all research activities of children under 18 require explicit consent from a parent or legal guardian; without it, participation is strictly prohibited. Consequently, our study was limited to children and adolescents for whom parental consent was obtained. We acknowledge that this requirement inherently excludes children whose guardians are either unavailable or unwilling to provide consent, potentially limiting the representation of more vulnerable or marginalized groups in the research sample.
Forming a Children and Youth Advisory Group
Group Composition
We recruited seven adolescents (two boys and five girls) from diverse socio-demographic backgrounds in East Jerusalem with varying levels of maturity, aged 13–19, reflecting the characteristics of the qualitative inquiry’s target sample. The gender disparity in the CYAG, with more females than males, was also reflected in the broader research sample. This gap underscores the challenges of recruiting Palestinian boys, largely due to heightened political persecution targeting male adolescents (Kovner & Shalhoub-Kevorkian, 2018) and their engagement in political activities as a coping mechanism (Afana et al., 2020), which has likely affected their willingness to participate in sensitive research topics. Despite efforts to achieve gender balance, many families declined participation due to fear of repercussions. Given this climate of distrust, we accepted all willing participants. After months of recruitment, the CYAG began its work with seven members, sufficient to sustain group activities despite occasional absences.
Diverse Group
The group included youth with varying levels of formal education, which allowed for a broader understanding of how adolescents from different educational backgrounds engage with research processes. We intentionally included both academically inclined and non-academically inclined students, guided by the principle that all children have the right to participate in research that affects them. This heterogeneity helped ensure that the research design was accessible and relevant to a wide range of children from the study population. None of the CYAG members had been diagnosed with learning or developmental difficulties, and thus, no specific accommodations were needed. The CYAG members also came from
Positionalities and Setting
The identity of the researchers and the research setting significantly influence the dynamics of children’s participation and their capacity to engage meaningfully. Researchers’ positionalities not only shape their perceptions and understandings of the researched phenomenon, but also potentially affect how research participants (including co-researchers) engage with them. A critically reflexive approach is necessary to understand how children’s voices are shaped by power dynamics, cultural norms, societal structures, and institutional constraints (Horgan, 2016; Spyrou, 2011). The authors of this study represent two highly distinct positionalities and identities. The first author is a Palestinian citizen of Israel residing in the north of Israel and holds a PhD in social work from an Israeli institution. The second author is a Jewish-Israeli law and criminology professor committed to children’s rights and human rights.
The study took place within a human rights program at an Israeli university—an environment that offered a novel, promising, yet potentially intimidating opportunity for CYAG members and their families. Recruitment was challenging, but the university’s prestige, the program’s humanistic orientation, and the Palestinian identity of the first author likely helped ease concerns. The first author provided full information about the second author and the program. Notably, two youths agreed to participate only after searching both authors online to assess their safety. To ensure a safe and inclusive space, only the first author met regularly with CYAG members, who later reported feeling comfortable and secure in her presence. The second author was introduced only during a supportive closing ceremony, where the youths’ contributions were acknowledged and celebrated.
Regarding the authors’ positionalities, the first author regularly shared insights from the CYAG with the second author. Processing and analyzing both the CYAG’s contributions and the research interview data—often emotionally difficult and revealing—required sustained joint reflection. The authors engaged in ongoing dialogue with each other, with a children’s rights research group, and with academic colleagues. On numerous occasions, each noticed different nuances in the children’s messages, allowing a richer, more layered understanding to emerge from their mutual deliberations.
Institutional Context
The CYAG participated in both virtual and in-person meetings at the university, each offering distinct benefits. In-person meetings fostered deeper engagement through shared experiences like group meals, snacks, and tours at the university. The physical environment, including scenic views and luxurious meeting rooms, contributed to a sense of importance among participants, with some remarking, “We feel like we are very important people.” These meetings promoted a stronger sense of community, affiliation, and responsibility toward the project, leading to greater collaboration compared to online-only interactions. However, institutional barriers arose, particularly for a member navigating military checkpoints, requiring early departures and facing delays. The unique circumstances also affected the planned activities. For example, in one meeting, participants were asked to bring colored pens for a group activity. One 13-year-old boy, from the Old City of Jerusalem, explained that he couldn’t bring pens because he couldn’t carry anything with him. He stated, “I come without a phone to pass through Damascus Gate [one of the entrances to Jerusalem’s Old City]; what do you expect me to bring pens for? I can’t carry a bag.” Others mentioned that at military checkpoints, their phones are often taken and searched for incriminating content. Additionally, the group faced challenges related to university access. While the security protocol typically allowed foreign visitors entry with prior approval and upon presenting an identification card, Palestinian CYAG members, who are mostly underage to hold an ID card, experienced additional hurdles. Despite having prior approval, they were often required to wait at the entrance until a program representative arrived to facilitate their entry. This strict security process led some members to feel unfairly targeted. As a result, they expressed discomfort, with some describing feelings of being threatened or treated unjustly.
To address these issues, meeting schedules were adjusted (e.g., setting them for early afternoons rather than evenings) to minimize delays caused by checkpoints. Participants were assured that late arrivals due to these difficulties would be fully accepted. Furthermore, the first author encouraged open communication about these concerns, validating their experiences, and seeking solutions, such as exploring other venues for the group sessions. Although the university was one of the participants’ preferred locations, the first author was proactive in considering alternative options to ensure the participants felt respected and supported. Meanwhile, the researchers, alongside the program, made efforts to influence the university’s security unit to ease this process for the CYAG members.
Respecting Choices, Space, and Cultural Values
Sessions with the advisory group were scheduled based on their preferences, with communication via WhatsApp to respect their time, space, and obligations, such as exam periods, to minimize disruptions and promote active participation. The group was given multiple venue options and chose the university as the preferred location. Despite being held at an Israeli university, meetings were conducted in Arabic, their native language, to ensure cultural and linguistic comfort and inclusivity.
Documenting
CYAG sessions and conversations were not audio-recorded to foster trust and ensure a sense of safety. This decision addressed fears among youth and their parents that meeting content could be used against them, should the police decide to prosecute them. In a sociopolitical climate of over-policing of Palestinian young people in East Jerusalem and elsewhere in Israel, this fear had merit, and refraining from recording those meetings was, in fact, an ethical issue of minimizing the exposure of the CYAG members to unnecessary risk of law enforcement encounters. Instead, the first author documented key recommendations and insights through written notes, preserving the group’s valuable feedback and ensuring that their suggestions were integrated into the research process while maintaining a respectful, non-intrusive atmosphere that emphasized trust and collaboration.
Co-researcher Model, Youth as Equals
CYAG members were referred to as “young researchers, a reflection of their active and crucial role throughout the research process. This participatory model was grounded in shared decision-making and mutual respect. Youth were involved in nearly all key decisions, including shaping the research questions, developing data collection tools, revising recruitment materials, and interpreting findings. For example, they advised replacing the term
Fostering Trust, Motivation, and Aligning Expectations
Building trust and motivation while aligning expectations were critical steps in engaging CYAG members as co-researchers. Initial sessions focused on trust-building through introductions, ice-breaking activities, and transparent discussions about project goals, expectations, and compensation—a key ethical issue in participatory research (Chaffee et al., 2024; Montreuil et al., 2021). This process aimed to balance the need for the group’s efficiency with sustaining their motivation. Most CYAG members attended academic-track high schools and expressed strong aspirations for higher education. They viewed the research as a valuable opportunity to develop academic skills and gain university exposure. For CYAG members who are less academically inclined, their motivation stemmed from the opportunity to socially engage with other teens and to develop advocacy skills. For all CYAG members, their strong motivation was further rooted in contextual factors, including limited alternative opportunities in East Jerusalem and a collective frustration over their inability to enact change due to restrictions on freedom of expression and experiences of oppression. These dynamics fostered a sense of purpose among the group, reducing the need for typical child-friendly tools (e.g., games and role play) in co-research (Powell & Smith, 2009), as their maturity and aspirations naturally aligned with the research’s demands.
Aligning expectations within the CYAG process involved addressing ethical concerns, particularly avoiding economic exploitation while recognizing children’s contributions. While members were intrinsically motivated, fair remuneration was essential to acknowledge their efforts. Payment served multiple purposes, including compensating time, expressing gratitude, and ensuring ethical equity for their involvement outside school or other obligations (Bradbury-Jones & Taylor, 2015; Lamb, 2023). Research also highlights that child researchers value non-monetary benefits such as training, certifications, and skill development, aligning with their aspirations (Porter et al., 2010). In the present study, each CYAG member received, at the graduation ceremony, a certificate—granted in response to their request—recognizing their role as a co-researcher at the university, along with a decorated water bottle and a voucher redeemable at bookstores and other local stores. Before purchasing the vouchers, the list of stores was reviewed in consultation with the members to ensure the options were accessible, affordable, and relevant to their needs.
Capacity Building for Young Researchers
Providing opportunities for children and youth to develop skills and knowledge through research involvement includes training sessions, workshops, and mentorship (Dimopoulos et al., 2024; Woodgate et al., 2018). CYAG sessions incorporated workshops aimed to bridge the knowledge gap and prepare the group for the research process. These sessions introduced qualitative research principles, framing research questions, data collection techniques, ethical considerations, and basic stages of qualitative analysis, alongside discussions about children’s rights and participatory research. While the training was less extensive than the thorough programs advocated by Kellett (2010) due to resource and time limitations, it provided foundational knowledge and acknowledged the youth’s expertise. Subsequent sessions combined ongoing guidance with collaborative decision-making, which is elaborated in the following sections.
Constructing the Research Topic
The first two CYAG meetings aimed at establishing a sense of group belonging, introducing the broad research agenda, and co-constructing the research framework and questions. Initially, the first author presented a theoretical framework based on the minority stress model. However, during early discussions, some CYAG members expressed discomfort with the term “minority,” noting that it did not capture their lived realities under occupation. Instead, their reflections centered on themes such as settler colonialism and resistance. These terminologies are highly disputable in the current political climate in Israel, and adopting them as the theoretical basis for the study was not a trivial decision. Nevertheless, committed to being attentive to the CYAG’s input, the authors adapted the theoretical framing accordingly. This shift in framing required revisiting and reanalyzing the initial data, as the minority stress model was set aside. While this added complexity, it ultimately enhanced the study’s reliability and credibility as it avoided conceptual impositions that might distort meaning. By grounding the analysis in the youths’ terminology and framing, the study ensured cultural and political relevance, strengthening the trustworthiness of the findings. For example, the co-researchers introduced culturally specific expressions of coping (e.g., the indigenous concept of
Concrete and Safe Discourse
For the first meeting, CYAG members were asked to bring photos of their home environment, and these photos helped initiate discussions about their daily lives. Each participant shared the meaning behind their chosen photos, discussing the stressors they and their peers face, thus fostering both personal connection and collective understanding. This process not only helped define the research topic but also utilized the advisory group as a focus group using concrete images, exemplifying the collaborative and participatory nature of the research. Using a non-directive approach fostered a comfortable environment, particularly given the sensitive nature of the topic during a period of heightened surveillance and restricted freedom of expression. To manage sensitive information, besides using a photo activity, the young researchers were advised to frame important details as someone else’s story without identifying individuals by name. This procedure allowed CYAG to address sensitive topics without compromising legal safety while preserving the research’s integrity.
Youth Partnership in Setting Terminology
In the next meeting, the first author introduced Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory of child development (1979), which portrays children’s psychosocial development as impacted by several concentric circles in their lives, from the nuclear family, through school and social services, to the broader community, society, and state. This learning module was designed to help the group refine the study’s goals and terminology. CYAG members, working in pairs, created visual models of stressors adolescents face at various ecological levels, integrating insights from prior discussions. Presenting their models sparked further collaboration and dialogue. Notably, the insights gained from the CYAG regarding the images and ecological models they presented aligned closely with the findings obtained later from the broader participant sample, providing an additional layer of triangulation within the research.
Interview Guide Development
After finalizing the research topic, the CYAG was involved in shaping ethical considerations and research processes from an early stage, as part of addressing the power dynamics (Collins et al., 2020). The tentative questions submitted for ethics approval were shared with the group, who collaboratively refined them based on prior discussions to ensure relevance. Ongoing remote consultations with the group members between meetings focused on refining interview questions and consent forms, finalizing recruitment notices, and distributing flyers.
Group and Peer-Assisted Work
During the development of the interview guide and recruitment letters, CYAG members employed collaborative, peer-assisted work. Older members supported younger ones in testing questions for clarity and age-appropriateness, ensuring their relevance to the diverse target sample. One member volunteered to revise the guide during the meeting, integrating group feedback and technical refinements. Pilot testing revealed that younger members sometimes struggled with specific terms or concepts, prompting peers to rephrase them using accessible language. These adjustments, informed by peer learning principles, enhanced the materials’ linguistic and developmental suitability. The process fostered a participatory environment where members shaped the tools based on their lived expertise, enhancing both their usability and the overall strength of the research methodology.
Spiral Work
Working with the CYAG on refining the research topic, research questions, interview guides for children and parents, and recruitment materials was spiral in nature. To meet children’s concrete mode of thinking, it was necessary to begin with specific experiences they endured (as emerging from the photo activity). These specific issues were then conceptualized in a more abstract way to refine the research topic. Upon returning to concrete experiences through the ecological circles’ activity, more insights emerged, which helped refine the research questions and work on the interview guide. The process involved dynamic shifts between concrete examples and abstract discussions, fostering deeper understanding and continuous refinement of the research design.
Sampling and Recruiting Research Participants
Incorporating children as co-researchers in recruitment and data collection fosters equity in research, as it decreases power imbalances and enables effective recruitment of peers. This participatory approach enhances comfort and engagement among child participants while yielding richer data (Powell & Smith, 2009). In the present study, CYAG members took numerous roles in the recruitment of research participants and data collection.
Strength-Based Role Assigning
At this stage, the group proposed dividing tasks based on individual strengths, with members volunteering for roles they felt confident in. For example, they helped design an attractive recruitment flyer for youth, generate a scannable QR code, and develop an anonymous electronic registration form for potential participants. Some also visited youth centers to recruit participants and build rapport with children, parents, and the youth centers’ staff. All these are critical aspects in recruitment and research settings in creating an environment of trust and collaboration (Powell & Smith, 2009).
Building Trust with Parents, Participants, and Community Figures
Research participants were recruited using convenience and snowball methods through acquaintances and youth centers, but trust issues posed challenges in recruiting participants for a study that investigates sociopolitical stressors, mainly in wartime. First, since the Second Intifada in 2000, Israeli military courts have imposed harsher sentences on Palestinian children, mostly for stone-throwing. Restrictions on family and legal visits have made monitoring their detention conditions difficult, and prison conditions—especially for children—have worsened significantly, violating international standards (Venczel, 2024). Second, given the critical time of the Israeli war on Gaza, the Israeli police have increased their excessive police enforcement campaigns against Palestinians, particularly in East Jerusalem (e.g., Molana-Allen & Cebrián Aranda, 2023; Rosenfeld, 2023). Furthermore, since the recent Israeli war on Gaza, Palestinian minors and adult prisoners in Israeli detention centers have faced dramatic deterioration of their confinement conditions, leading to overcrowding, inadequate healthcare, limited family contact, hunger, and diseases (Makhlouf, 2023). With the intensified surveillance and regular nighttime arrests of youths in East Jerusalem, fear of being detained and prosecuted following expressions of opinion regarding the war in Gaza was particularly heightened. The first author exhausted every connection and invitation to find parents and youth who would be trusting enough to engage in a research project conducted by researchers from an Israeli university. Establishing trust among adolescents and their parents required months of effort. The first author leveraged community connections and youth center guides to create a safe environment for participation. CYAG members, acting as co-researchers, also helped recruit peers. Direct outreach to hesitant parents further secured their trust and support. Third, the CYAG raised an additional trust issue external to the war, noting that participants might be reluctant to have their interviews recorded, fearing potential reporting to authorities. Thus, they recommended clearly explaining the purpose of recording the interviews when reaching out to recruit any participants, to prevent misunderstandings. The CYAG’s input was instrumental in determining how the interview recording would be explained to participants and how the researchers would maintain participants’ privacy and protection.
Addressing Legal Risks in Over-policed Communities
The research team was alerted to potential legal risks due to the over-policing of the Arab-Palestinian community by Israeli authorities, particularly in East Jerusalem. The IRB cautioned that participants might unintentionally disclose information that could be perceived as illegal, thereby incriminating themselves. For example, given the increased encounters between law enforcement and Palestinian youth in East Jerusalem—particularly around allegations of stone-throwing—and the possibility that participants might reference such acts as coping responses to stress or frustration, we were concerned that authorities could seek access to recordings or transcripts, thereby exposing participants to elevated legal risks. To mitigate this, the informed consent forms included explicit warnings, emphasizing that the study did not seek to explore political opinions or illegal actions. The language used in these documents was determined in consultation with the CYAG and was carefully crafted to ensure that participants do not endanger themselves while also not discouraging their participation due to fear of police involvement.
Data Collection
Respecting and Implementing CYAG Advice
The first author consulted with the CYAG on data collection methods, receiving valuable age- and context-specific feedback. For example, the group suggested offering Zoom meetings for research participants who would be unable to attend in person due to security or parental restrictions. They recommended focus groups for discussing collective issues but cautioned against sharing politically sensitive topics outside the group. They also advised against mixing groups of friends to maintain boundaries between what is being discussed in the focus group and what peers choose to share as friends. Eventually, focus groups did not take place due to participants’ preferences to be interviewed individually, a preference that the first author shared with the CYAG. The CYAG further recommended offering various interview locations, such as youth centers or public spaces, a suggestion that proved helpful during data collection. Additionally, they advocated for conducting interviews with parents to ease tensions and build trust for both adolescents and their families. However, they emphasized that parental interviews should only occur with the adolescents’ explicit consent and strict confidentiality, ensuring that no information shared in interviews with adolescents would be disclosed to their parents, and vice versa. Indeed, data collection for the study followed this strategy.
Prioritizing CYAG Safety
Concerns about involving children and youth in data collection often center on confidentiality, exposure to sensitive data, and emotional well-being, especially if the young researcher and participants are part of the same community. Exposure to distressing content from peers can exacerbate adolescents’ difficulties (Bradbury-Jones & Taylor, 2015). Some studies suggest having an adult present during interviews to mitigate these risks (Kellett, 2005). In our study, we (as a research team/ authors) opted to limit children’s involvement in data collection for several reasons: (1) The research’s focus on sociopolitical stress could expose children to difficult peer content; (2) Wartime silencing and over-policing in East Jerusalem could overwhelm young researchers; (3) Ensuring participant confidentiality in a small, close-knit community was crucial; and (4) The sensitive nature of potential disclosed information required adult involvement to protect participants from potential self-incrimination and safeguard young researchers from collecting information that could implicate them. These risks and considerations were fully shared and discussed with the CYAG, and decisions were made together.
Shared Decision-Making
Some CYAG members wished to be fully involved in data collection. Following their initiative and ethics committee approval, it was agreed that they would conduct a few interviews with professionals rather than with children or parents, as they initially suggested. This balanced their desire for active participation in data collection with the need to ensure their safety. The data from these child-led interviews enriched the study’s understanding of sociopolitical stressors and coping and contributed to triangulation.
Youth Leadership and Autonomy
Allowing youth to have a say in decision-making and providing opportunities for them to lead certain aspects of the research fosters a sense of ownership and empowerment (Chaffee et al., 2024). Following the decision that some CYAG members would conduct interviews with professionals working with children, these members received a designated training session that covered interview procedures, ethical considerations, effective questioning techniques, and handling sensitive information, emphasizing the privacy of child clients.
The young researchers had varied experiences conducting interviews. For some, it was empowering and educational, as Nada (17) reflected: The interview went smoothly, though I was nervous since it was a new experience […] The answers weren’t as complete as expected, possibly due to my phrasing or the open-ended questions. Overall, I enjoyed it and found it valuable for my university journey, especially as it involved research, a key academic area. Others faced challenges, with Mays (17) sharing: Honestly, I don’t prefer being exposed to such situations. During the interview, the conversation turned inappropriate, and I didn’t know how to respond or set boundaries. I was afraid that confronting him might make him rush or cancel the interview altogether.
These experiences highlight that while training can prepare young researchers, it may not fully equip them to navigate complex dynamics with adult participants outside the learning process.
Navigating Power Dynamics
Addressing power dynamics and ethical considerations when children are engaged in interviewing adults is crucial in promoting respectful and equitable collaboration. In this study, the three young co-researchers conducted separate interviews with adult professionals, which at times highlighted the inherent power imbalance between them as interviewers and adult interviewees. While the young interviewers were capable of conducting the interviews independently, in retrospect, it might have been more beneficial for them to interview in pairs. This could have provided a greater sense of security and reduced the sense of being “outpowered” by the adults in these professional roles. This seems like a better option than an adult researcher accompanying a young researcher—an option that is more likely to increase adult dominance in the interview.
Data Co-Analysis
Engaging in Coding
In the session focusing on data analysis, the first author introduced qualitative research and thematic analysis to the CYAG, using simplified language (Collins et al., 2020). Then, the group participated in the analysis of six interview transcripts. The process began with a collective manual coding exercise of the transcripts, followed by individual coding of anonymized interview excerpts. Members shared their codes, and through discussion, consensus was reached on the final codes, ensuring all input was valued.
Self-Assignment and Collaborative Insights
The young researchers suggested working independently by taking portions of the interviews home and preparing for subsequent meetings. Later, the first author analyzed the interviews using Atlas.ti
2
, consulted with the second author, and cross-checked the group’s codes, refining them as needed. The CYAG’s codes, such as “
Ethical Considerations in Analyzing Sensitive Content
During data analysis, CYAG members were exposed to excerpts from their peers’ narratives, which raised concerns about potential distress and its impact on their well-being. Although members did not read all transcripts, partial exposure to sensitive content highlighted the risk of secondary trauma, as discussed by Bradbury-Jones and Taylor (2015). However, considering the pervasive political stressors faced daily in East Jerusalem, such exposure likely mirrored challenges they were already navigating. To address these concerns, both individual and collective debriefing sessions were conducted after each interview and analysis session to ensure the CYAG’s well-being and safety, and to help them process any sensitive content. Far from increasing stress, this process encouraged collective acknowledgment of shared adversities. Reflecting on these experiences in a supportive group and contributing to a study aimed at improving adolescent well-being likely enhanced their sense of recognition, empowerment, and purpose. CYAG members consistently expressed satisfaction and pride in their involvement. The following reflections, shared during the graduation ceremony, illustrate their sense of growth, empowerment, and emotional connection to the process. Sajida (19) emphasized the value of teamwork and personal growth: I’m grateful for this opportunity; it was my first time joining such a project and working with such a wonderful team and lead researcher. Regarding interviewing, it was a strange but meaningful first-time experience[…] The second interview felt more comfortable; I was able to ask questions without constantly looking at the guide. Another co-researcher highlighted the empowering nature of the project beyond her academic learning: This research gave us a powerful platform to express our thoughts and emotions freely, without fear of being dismissed. It made me more confident in myself and my ability to make a difference. Seeing how this research reached Israeli people who knew nothing about the struggles young Palestinians face has been truly empowering” (Nada). Others, like Mays, reflected on how the co-research process deepened their empathy: For me, this wasn’t just research—it was a humanitarian journey that opened my eyes to the real struggles of youth in East Jerusalem. Through the stories [transcripts], I didn’t just hear answers; I connected with their emotions, hopes, and daily challenges. This project taught me that every person has a story worth hearing and that true understanding begins with listening.
Youth Involvement in Disseminating the Study Findings
The research findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at academic and professional conferences. These publications and presentations will emphasize the collaborative process, incorporating insights from CYAG members to highlight their contributions to the research design and implementation. A key aspect of this study’s dissemination is involving CYAG members in preparing and presenting the findings.
CYAG members have already co-presented the study’s initial findings at a workshop for academics and researchers, offering them a platform to share their perspectives and experiences as co-researchers. They contributed to designing the presentation, crafting key messages, and selecting visuals or multimedia. This empowered them to take ownership of the outcomes and advocate for issues important to them.
To ensure appropriate recognition, CYAG members will be acknowledged in publications and conferences by first name and photographs showcasing their work, with consent obtained from both parents and adolescents. Individual opinions will remain confidential to uphold ethical standards. Regarding co-authorship of research outcomes, two CYAG members expressed interest in participating in the publication process. They will be invited to contribute to future papers by reviewing draft sections, offering feedback, and suggesting revisions based on their perspectives and experiences.
Discussion
This study provides an in-depth methodological and ethical analysis of a rights-respecting participatory research approach with Palestinian adolescents residing in Occupied East Jerusalem. Using the Lundy Model (2007), the participatory framework fostered meaningful collaboration with youth as co-researchers in a research project about their peers’ experiences of sociopolitical stress and coping mechanisms. The study offers novel insights into methodological approaches and ethical solutions for enhancing the engagement of child co-researchers in extreme and systemic exclusion and coercion contexts.
Study Contributions
This study aligns with prior research (e.g., Chaffee et al., 2024; Collier, 2019; Collins et al., 2020; Cuevas-Parra, 2020) supporting child-inclusive methodologies while highlighting the challenges and benefits of involving children and youth in advisory roles. It expands the limited literature on participatory research and ethics in politically fraught contexts.
First, this study identifies concrete contributions that children as co-researchers offer when the study population and the co-researchers themselves are under extreme circumstances of conflict and threat. Specifically, their
Second, our study highlights the importance of
Expanding and Honing the Lundy Model
Our experience in co-researching with Palestinian children and youth broadens Lundy’s Model (2007), offering theoretical and practical insights into children’s participation in wartime research. The following are our insights based on the model’s principles: Space, Voice, Influence, and Audience.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
In addition, the findings demonstrate that, at least in extreme situations when the focus of the study relates directly to the lives of the CYAG members, their contribution may move beyond the academic context through conferences and advocacy activities in which their perspectives are shared with relevant audiences. The human rights framework in which this study was conducted enabled the research findings to be discussed directly not only with academics but with policy-makers and civil society actors as well. Children’s and youth’s voices, both as CYAG members and participants, will also be included in academic publications with implications for policy and practice.
Implications for Research, Policy, and Practice
This study contributes to both research methodology and practice by advancing a participatory and rights-respecting framework of knowledge co-production with children in a conflict zone. It offers a model for engaging marginalized youth, particularly those under occupation or restrictive regimes, as co-researchers. The findings provide insights for designing youth-centered interventions that address sociopolitical stress and highlight the need to confront systemic inequities. This research also demonstrates the educational value of training adolescents as co-researchers, equipping them with skills and roles as community advocates.
Based on our findings, we propose the following principles for co-researching with children in marginalized communities and facing extreme circumstances. (1) (2) (3)
Limitations
Despite its innovative approach, this study has several limitations: First, contextual constraints in a conflict zone, such as trust issues, over-policing, and restricted freedom of expression, may have influenced CYAG responses and engagement. Second, the CYAG lacked gender (two boys, five girls) and religious (no Christian children) diversity, potentially limiting the representation of Palestinian adolescents’ experiences. The group might not have fully captured the broader experiences of all Palestinian adolescents in East Jerusalem, particularly those less inclined to participate in research activities. Third, the limited scope of training, due to time and resource constraints, may have affected the depth of CYAG members’ engagement. Finally, ethical and emotional considerations restricted the full involvement of the CYAG, particularly in data collection, as exposure to distressing narratives raised concerns about safety and emotional impact. Future research should address these limitations by enhancing participant diversity and training.
Footnotes
Author Note
Heba Faiek Zedan: The author has moved to another Institute: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to extend their sincere gratitude to the advisory group members (Nada, Mays, Sajida, Amro, Kinan, Qamar, & Rama) for their valuable contribution to this project.
Ethical Consideration
This study was approved by the Ethics Committee for Research on Human Subjects in Education and Law Department—The Hebrew University, under protocol number [046HLE2023]. All participants and their parents provided informed consent.
Consent to Participate
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants and their parents included in the study.
Consent for Publication
Informed consent was obtained from the advisory group members and their parents for mentioning their first names only, which were included in the Acknowledgments.
Author Contributions
Author 1 (Dr. Heba F. Zedan, a postdoctoral research fellow at ChYRP): Conceptualization, study design, project administration, recruitment and facilitation of the child and youth advisory group, conducting the participatory research activities, documenting and synthesizing the participatory process, drawing conclusions, and writing—original draft preparation. Author 2 (Prof. Tali Gal, head of ChYRP and supervisor): Supervision, conceptual guidance, and writing—review and editing.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This article is based on a study supported, in part, by the Child and Youth Rights Program Grant, Minerva Center for Human Rights, Faculty of Law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declares that there is no conflict of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data Availability Statement
Not fully applicable, due to lack of documentation, privacy/confidentiality reasons. Part of the data supporting the findings of this study is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.