Youth Participatory Research: A Review of Reviews and Practice Guidance

Source: 📒 Youth Participatory Research: A Review of Reviews and Practice Guidance

  📜🔗LINK

Number of pages: 61

1. Analytical summary

Context, audiences, and issues

The report starts from the observation of an increasing prominence of participatory approaches with marginalised young people in many fields (employment, health, public health, social, education, justice, housing), but with a strong heterogeneity in how they are defined, implemented, and documented. It is based on 18 literature reviews and 15 practice resources (guides, toolkits) mainly from high-income countries, to clarify what is meant by "participation", "marginalisation", and "research/evaluation" in this context. The focus is on young people exposed to structural inequalities, who are often underrepresented in traditional research frameworks and frequently reduced to being "subjects" rather than partners. The report highlights that participation often remains sporadic, poorly theorised, and not linked to measurable outcomes for young people and systems. It recalls the ethical and legal grounding of participation (Convention on the Rights of the Child, principle of "nothing about us without us") and questions the risks of reproducing power dynamics if approaches are not thought through reflectively. Finally, it proposes to examine existing practices through a "research pathway" in seven steps, in order to make visible where and how young people can truly influence decisions.

Operational contributions for stakeholders

Based on the synthesis, the report describes the concrete modalities of youth participation at each stage of a research/evaluation project (recruitment, co-definition of questions, choice of methods, data collection, analysis, dissemination, closure) and highlights cross-cutting levers of 'good practice'. It identifies nine key 'drivers' of promising practice – theorisation and reflexivity, centrality of the youth voice, power sharing, appropriate communication, transparency and feedback loops, inclusive practices, safe spaces, trauma-informed collaboration, recognition and incentives – and shows how to articulate them throughout the process. The document also provides a critical framework: it points out the gaps in the literature (few quantitative data on effects, low consideration of intersections of marginalisation, very positive discourse with little analysis of potential deleterious effects) and offers recommendations to strengthen the monitoring and evaluation of participatory mechanisms. For field teams, it serves as a self-diagnostic tool to situate their practices, identify areas for improvement (notably on power sharing and emotional safety), and design more explicit, traceable, and evaluable protocols for youth participation.

2. Key points of the document 

1. The report proposes a 'participatory research journey' in seven stages (engagement/recruitment/training; framing and definition; design; data collection; analysis; dissemination; reflection/feedback/closure) to structure youth participation throughout a project, rather than at a few isolated 'points of contact' (pp. 30–37).

2. The analysis of the 18 reviews and 15 practice resources shows a great variability in definitions, levels of participation, and descriptions of methods, making it difficult to compare approaches and identify 'what works' in terms of effects for young people (p. 19–29, 50–51).

3. Nine cross-cutting conditions are highlighted as facilitators of quality participation: explicit conceptualisation and reflexivity, attention to the voice of young people, power sharing, ongoing communication, transparency and feedback, inclusion, safe spaces, a trauma-informed approach, and recognition/compensation for young people (p. 37–47).

4. The positive effects of participation are mainly documented qualitatively: socio-emotional development and skills in young people, improvement in the relevance and methodological quality of studies, adjustments to services or systems more aligned with needs, broader community impacts, but with very few robust quantitative measures (p. 47–49).

5. The report emphasises current blind spots: little data on risks (re-traumatisation, overload, tokenism), little work on the 'right intensity' of participation according to contexts, low consideration of intersectional margins, and a near absence of causal impact evaluations, which calls for more demanding and explicitly co-constructed monitoring and evaluation frameworks (p. 18, 50–51).

3. Action points for local stakeholders

1. Formalise a 'youth participation pathway' for each research/evaluation project, asking at each stage (defining the question, choosing methods, data collection, analysis, dissemination, closure) what concrete role the young people involved can play and what resources (time, training, support) are necessary to make it effective (p. 30–37, 51).

2. At the start, use a participation model (participation scale/wheel, matrix, Lundy model) to clarify the intended level of participation, the real margins of manoeuvre, and the areas where power will mainly remain with adults, then revisit this choice during the project with the young people (p. 6–7, 38–40, 51–52).

3. Invest in preparation: identifying and mobilising through local networks, building trust relationships, training peer researchers, producing accessible and culturally adapted information materials, clarifying expectations and limits (including non-negotiable ethical, regulatory, or institutional aspects) (p. 31–33, 37–38, 42–45).

4. Systematically integrate safety and psycho-social support mechanisms (safe spaces, trauma-informed facilitation, vigilance regarding the risks of re-traumatisation, clear reporting and referral procedures, adapting locations and timings to the constraints of young people) and co-construct them with them (p. 43–46, 50).

5. From the project's design stage, plan for recognition and evaluation modalities: criteria for assessing the quality of participation (for young people and for teams), data collection on the effects for young people and for services, feedback tailored to young people and communities, and fair and justified compensation mechanisms (financial or symbolic) (p. 37–38, 46–47, 51).

4. Additional References

🔍➕ For more information, see the articles referenced by "Pratiques en Santé" on the theme of participation ➡️🔗https://pratiquesensante.odoo.com/1-2-participation

1. Participatory research with young people: a toolkit (GAGE/ODI, 2024) – Practical toolkit, structured in 6 steps (defining questions, designing tools, collecting, analysing, sharing, monitoring), very complementary for operationalising the approach in the field.https://gage.odi.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/PARToolkit-2024_updated-1.pdf

2. Participatory research with children and young people: a systematic umbrella review (McCafferty et al., 2026, Journal of Youth Studies or associated source) – Review of reviews that updates knowledge on the effects, methods, and ethical issues of participatory research with children and young people, useful for strengthening the scientific argument.https://pure.qub.ac.uk/en/publications/participatory-research-with-children-and-young-people-a-systemati/

3. Guidelines for the design and implementation of youth participation initiatives to safeguard wellbeing (MJA, 2024) – Practical recommendations from a review of global literature on youth participation and the protection of their wellbeing, focused on participatory health initiatives.https://www.mja.com.au/journal/2024/221/10/guidelines-design-and-implementation-youth-participation-initiatives-safeguard

5. Cross-sectional analysis — values of Pratiques en Santé

• Literacy: The document remains technical but emphasises the importance of clear, accessible, and culturally appropriate information materials to recruit and inform young participants, without proposing ready-made health literacy modules.

• Empowerment: It describes how young people can move from being "consulted" to co-researchers, defining questions, interpreting data, and co-disseminating findings, linking this empowerment to the redistribution of power within initiatives.

• Participation: The core of the report is the description of participation mechanisms at each stage of the research (recruitment, framing, design, collection, analysis, dissemination, closure) and the conditions for it to be substantial and not symbolic.

• Community health: The collective dimension appears through the expected impacts on services, local systems, and communities (adaptation of interventions, community mobilisation), even if the analysis remains focused on research rather than ongoing community action.

• Ethics: The authors highlight the risks of re-traumatisation, the reinforcement of power inequalities, tokenism, and the necessity for trauma-informed practices, informed consent, safe spaces, and team reflexivity.

• Human rights: The participation of young people is based on a rights framework (Convention on the Rights of the Child, right to be heard, principle of 'nothing about us without us') and on a requirement for equity in access to research spaces.

• Intersectorality: The works reviewed come from multiple sectors (employment, health, public health, social, education, justice, housing, poverty), which suggests and encourages intersectoral partnerships around youth participation.

• Partnership: The report promotes models of co-research, youth advisory committees, and collaborations between organisations, but does not detail contractual models of shared governance.

• Combating discrimination: He emphasises the need to include marginalised youth, to work on cultural, linguistic and structural barriers, but acknowledges a lack of systematic data on intersectional discrimination and its effects in participatory frameworks.

Points of caution in facilitation (sensitive themes)

The document addresses marginalised youth and contexts where potentially traumatic experiences are common (mental health, violence, poverty, discrimination), but it does not focus on a single theme such as gender-based and sexual violence, HIV, or chemsex. However, it repeatedly emphasises the need for trauma-informed approaches, safe spaces, and prevention of re-traumatisation.

Risks of emotional triggering (to be considered during facilitation with this material):

• Discussions around experiences of marginalisation, exclusion, and 'unheard voices', which can reactivate experiences of rejection, racism, homophobia, transphobia, or social stigma.

• Accounts or examples related to mental health, precariousness, and institutional violence, which may awaken painful memories in participants with similar experiences.

• Questions about the sharing of power between adults and youth, which may evoke strong emotions (anger, frustration, sense of injustice) in trainees or participants who have experienced situations where their voices were not respected.

6. Evaluation of the reliability of the resource

• Scientific relevance: The approach is based on an explicit protocol published on the Open Science Framework, a systematic search in several databases, the use of a PICOSS framework and structured extraction, and the inclusion of 18 reviews and 15 practice resources with a configurative narrative analysis; the methodological limitations (heterogeneous definitions, low effect measurement, few intersectional analyses) are clearly stated.

• Operational relevance: The report offers a very directly applicable reading for practice (a seven-step process, drivers of promising practice, concrete examples by phase), but assumes an ability to adapt to local contexts and does not provide ready-to-use standardised tools; it is particularly suited to teams with a minimum of research and participation culture.

7. MCQ — 5 questions

Part 1 — Questions (without answers)

Question 1 (pp. 9–13, 19–23):

What was one of the main objectives of the review conducted by the CEI?

a) To assess the effectiveness of school dropout prevention programmes

b) To identify and consolidate knowledge on participatory research methods with young people

c) To compare youth policies between low and high-income countries

d) To measure the economic impact of youth projects on the labour market

Question 2 (pp. 30–32):

Which of the following proposals is NOT part of the steps in the "participatory research journey" described in the report?

a) Engage, recruit and train young people

b) Framing, scoping and implementation

c) Data analysis

d) Quarterly budget control by the supervisory authority

Question 3 (p. 37–39):

Which of the following is cited as a driver of promising practice in participatory research with young people?

a) Complete standardisation of quantitative tools

b) Theorisation, conceptualisation and reflexivity

c) Outsourcing consultation to a private agency

d) Reducing participation time to limit costs

Question 4 (p. 43–46):

What does the concept of 'safe spaces' mainly cover in the report?

a) Rooms reserved for adult researchers only

b) Physical and relational environments where young people can express themselves without risk of stigma or harm

c) Digital platforms protected by password

d) Premises compliant only with fire regulations

Question 5 (p. 47–49, 50–51):

What major limitation of the literature on participatory research with young people is highlighted in the report?

a) The complete absence of qualitative work

b) The overrepresentation of studies conducted in low-income countries

c) The lack of robust quantitative data on the effects of participatory approaches

d) The legal impossibility of involving young people under 18 in research

Part 2 — Commented correction

Question 1:

✅ Correct answer: b) Identify and consolidate knowledge on participatory research methods with young people

📝 Explanation: The review explicitly aims to identify and synthesise the learnings from existing reviews and practice resources, to better understand how to design and implement participatory approaches with marginalised youth in research and evaluation. Source: pp. 1–3, 9–10.

Question 2:

✅ Correct answer: d) Quarterly budget control by the supervising authority

📝 Explanation: The "participatory research pathway" includes the stages of engagement/recruitment/training, framing and setup, design, collection, analysis, dissemination, and reflection/closure, but does not mention budget management as a component of this framework. Source: pp. 30–32.

Question 3:

✅ Correct answer: b) Theorisation, conceptualisation, and reflexivity

📝 Explanation: Among the identified drivers, the theorisation of the participatory framework, its explicit conceptualisation, and the reflexivity of researchers are presented as key conditions for ethical and quality participation; the other proposals are not listed as recommended levers. Source: pp. 37–39.

Question 4:

✅ Correct answer: b) Physical and relational environments where young people can express themselves without the risk of stigma or harm

📝 Explanation: "Safe spaces" refer to physical and relational environments free from physical, emotional, or psychological harm, where young people can express themselves without fear of judgement or discrimination, beyond mere material considerations. Source: pp. 45–46.

Question 5:

✅ Correct answer: c) The lack of robust quantitative data on the effects of participatory approaches

📝 Explanation: The report emphasises that the benefits of participation are mainly described qualitatively and that very few studies measure the effects of participatory approaches on young people or systems in a quantitative and causal manner. Source: pp. 47–49, 50–51.

8. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

1. Who is concerned by this report?

   It is aimed at organisations and teams involved in research or evaluations including young people (universities, NGOs, public services, foundations), particularly when it comes to young people marginalised by structural inequalities (employment, health, social issues, education, justice, housing). Reference: pp. 4–5, 23–29.

2. What is the added value of this report compared to a 'general' participation guide?

   The report systematically articulates the levels of participation of young people at each stage of a research/evaluation project, drawing on a synthesis of 18 reviews and 15 practical resources, and emphasising the ethical and methodological issues specific to research. Reference: pp. 9–11, 19–29, 37–39.

3. How can one know what level of participation to aim for in a project?

   The report recommends using existing models (Hart's ladder, participation wheel, Shier, Lundy models, etc.) to clarify from the outset the desired level of participation, in relation to the context, available resources, and objectives, and then to discuss this choice with young people. Reference: pp. 6–7, 38–40, 51–52.

4. What are the main risks of a poorly designed participatory approach?

   The authors mention the risk of retraumatisation, the reinforcement of power inequalities, purely symbolic participation (‘tokenism’), overload for young people, and the absence of concrete benefits if ethical and organisational conditions are not met. Reference: p. 18, 43–46, 50–51.

5. How can young people's participation be integrated into data analysis?

   The report describes different levels of involvement, from consultation on themes already produced by researchers to analysis groups co-facilitated with young people, capable of reinterpreting qualitative and quantitative data based on their experiences and questioning adult interpretations. Reference: p. 35–36, 40–41.

6. Can this framework be used in health or public health projects?

   Yes, many relevant journals and resources focus on health, mental health, and public health; the stages of the journey and the drivers of practice are transferable to intervention studies, prevention programmes, or health education involving young people. Reference: p. 4, 23–28, 47–49.

7. How can the effects of young people's participation be documented?

   The report recommends defining effect indicators for young people (skills, agency, well-being), for studies (quality, relevance), and for services/systems from the outset, and then combining qualitative and quantitative methods to better demonstrate the value of participatory approaches. Reference: p. 47–49, 51.

9. Rewriting in Easy Read Format

Easy Read Title

Research with young people: easy to read summary

Easy Read analytical summary

Context and issues

• This document discusses research projects conducted with young people, not just about young people.

• It mainly looks at young people who are facing difficulties in life, work, health, or school.

• The authors have read many articles and guides to understand how to involve young people.

• They show that participation varies greatly from one project to another.

• Often, young people give their opinions but do not really make decisions.

• The document reminds us that young people have rights and must be listened to regarding decisions that affect them.

Contributions for action

• The document outlines the main stages of a research project with young people.

• It explains what young people can do at each stage, for example, choosing the questions or helping to analyse the results.

• It provides ideas for making participation fairer, safer, and more useful for young people.

• It discusses important issues: sharing power, simple language, safe spaces, and respecting difficult experiences.

• It also states that we still lack clear figures to measure the effects of participation.

• It suggests better tracking of results for young people, for projects, and for services.

Key points FALC

1. Research journey with young people

• A research project has several stages.

• Young people can participate from the beginning to the end.

• They can help define the topic, the questions, and the methods.

• They can help collect data and understand it.

• They can participate in the dissemination and evaluations of the project.

1. Importance of the voice of young people

• Young people have important knowledge about their lives.

• Their voice must count in decisions.

• Adults must create conditions to listen to all young people, not just those who are most comfortable.

• Silence can also be a way of speaking and must be respected.

1. Sharing power

• In many projects, adults decide almost everything.

• The document encourages sharing power more with young people.

• This means giving real opportunities to choose and act.

• Young people can be co-researchers and not just 'participants'.

1. Safe spaces and respect for experiences

• Some young people have experienced very difficult situations.

• Meetings should take place in safe and supportive environments.

• Adults must be careful with the words they use.

• It is important to avoid triggering painful memories without appropriate support.

1. Lack of evidence on the effects

• Many people believe that participation is useful.

• The document states that there are few precise figures to show this.

• It encourages better measurement of the effects for young people.

• It also suggests tracking changes in services and communities.