Towards agentic youth engagement: a youth participatory action research study

The aim of this study is to explore the social phenomenon of agentic youth engagement and contribute to its theorizing and conceptualization. Our theoretical contribution offers a conceptualization of agentic youth engagement informed by the literature and youth perspectives, achieved through the application of youth participatory action research. This study asks: “how can youth help us understand agentic youth engagement and contribute to its theorizing and conceptualization through youth participatory action research?” Our conceptualization of agentic youth engagement reveals the role of a convergence of motivations, and how these are affected by barriers and enablers as well as dispositional considerations such as an internally oriented locus of control. The research study applies a model of youth participatory action research (YPAR) (Williams, 2024) and interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA) (Smith and Osborn, 2004). The novelty of the study stems from the dual role youth play, serving as both youth researchers and participants. Their collective insights expand our understanding of agentic youth engagement as a prosocial behaviour but also the utility of YPAR as a method. We hope our study can inform future research on agentic youth engagement and youth participatory action research.

Youth engagement is variously described and defined in the literature. Though we tend to use the terms participation and engagement interchangeably, it is important to note that engagement is active, intentional and takes on the tenor of meaningful involvement with sustained interest. Additionally, a youth participation strategy may be aimed at creating youth engagement (Simmons et al., 2021). In an institutional or organizational context, it often considers youth involvement in decision-making and policy to ensure such practices are responsive and relevant to youth (Augsberger et al., 2023). In an educational environment, youth engagement considers positive social connection, academic success, motivational drivers and other factors which may further characterize a thriving context where youth can develop (Debnam et al., 2014; Bowles et al., 2022). Furthermore, educators see a relationship between school engagement and academic success, including decreased dropout rates and increased graduation rates (Debnam et al., 2014). Engagement in a research context is also seen as a way to promote intergenerational dialogue, reduce power imbalances and empower youth (Nesrallah et al., 2023). Generally, youth engagement is seen as positive and central to understanding how to support positive development. However, youth engagement is complex and is not well understood (Simmons et al., 2021). Lacking both definitional clarity and insights into lived experience, this study contributes to our understanding of agentic youth engagement both theoretically but also as a phenomenon contributing to important developmental processes, experienced by young people. Herein, we define agentic youth engagement as a developmental and transformative process involving thinking, acting and experimenting in new ways, resulting in influence and new potentialities.

This paper is organized in the following way. We first review the literature on youth engagement, which highlights our theoretical entry points, including the interdisciplinary and multi-method literature on youth engagement. We also introduce literature which converses with our data, including youth motivations, enabling factors and locus of control. We conclude this review by reiterating our working definition of agentic youth engagement as informed by these literature and some reflection on our own positionality and interdisciplinary orientation to this research. We then review our methodological approach, which combines a model of YPAR (Williams, 2024) and IPA (Smith and Osborn, 2004). In our findings and analysis section, we share data which highlight the aforementioned literature, including motivations for youth engagement, perceptions of barriers and enablers and evidence of both an internal and external locus of control orientation. Our discussion unpacks our findings, discusses implications, including disciplinary considerations and raises new questions. Importantly, this section reviews our key contributions in that (1) youth engagement necessitates a convergence of youth motivations experienced at the individual and organizational level; and (2) youth engagement is an ongoing, relational process. To explain our findings, we offer up a conceptualization of agentic youth engagement informed by the literature and our own youth data. As an exploratory study, our findings offer additional clarity but also raise new questions. We conclude by returning to the aim of our study and future research opportunities.

In this section, we review the extant literature with a focus on the literature that converses with our findings and study aims. Our assessment of the literature supports the following problem statement: Youth engagement needs further study; implications are clear for formal settings and those that support youth; and models and measures of youth engagement are still developing.

Broadly speaking, there are three key themes we have noted in the literature related to youth engagement that we wish to raise here. The first theme is that there is an ongoing scholarly conversation on the need to understand youth engagement and foster youth engagement. Youth engagement is understood as an important developmental process, but how to foster and sustain it is elusive. The second key theme is that youth engagement is not well understood or conceptualized in the literature. It lacks both definitional clarity but also insight into how it is experienced by youth. The third is that youth engagement models and measures are limited.

Youth engagement is an important developmental process: Youth that engage and participate in meaningful activities benefit from personal growth and developmental skills. They also think more proactively about their futures (Simmons et al., 2021). Additionally, research suggests that youth who are engaged in meaningful activities develop important social and cognitive skills and a better connection with their community (Simmons et al., 2021). Several studies point to the developmental merits of youth engagement, and these span formal and informal environments. Research points to the cross-cutting benefits from engagement such as educational benefits from participating in sports (Morgan and Parker, 2023), positive social development as a result of school engagement (Debnam et al., 2014), identity development through community engagement (Rodriquez et al., 2023) and psychological development through youth activities and hobbies (Ramey et al., 2015). Our data will expand our understanding of these benefits with first-voice accounts across a range of activities.

Conceptualizing youth engagement: A succinct definition of youth engagement is a bit challenging. For instance, Farthing (2012) defines youth participation (engagement) as “a process where young people, as active citizens, take part in, express views on and have decision-making power about issues that affect them” (Farthing, 2012; as cited in Simmons et al., 2021, p. 1003). Another definition characterizes youth engagement as “meaningful and sustained involvement in an activity outside of the self” (Pancer et al., 2002, as cited in Ramey et al., 2015). Therefore, it is useful to think of youth engagement as both the propensity to engage and also stay engaged. It is both active and intentional. Our data will expand this definition with new insights, and we will introduce a conceptualization that reflects our interpretation of how we see youth engagement conceived by youth.

Models and measures of youth engagement: A final key insight from our literature review is that understanding youth engagement and potential models and measures remains underexplored (Kellett, 2011; Monson and Thurley, 2011, as cited in Simmons et al., 2021). For advocates, educators, youth supporting organizations and stakeholders, this leaves the prospect of youth engagement a tricky process, which relies on potentially unreliable strategies with inconsistent results. It also serves the objectives of this research, as we intend to contribute to a conceptualization of agentic youth engagement for researchers and practitioners to continue to build upon. Measuring engagement is difficult, and comprises several dimensions of subjective experience (Ramey et al., 2015). It is also comprised of different levels of engagement (e.g. psychological) and measures are limited in terms of capturing moment-to-moment immersion (Ramey et al., 2015). This has led to some interest in measuring engagement in terms of psychological metrics. That research confirms several components featuring in why youth engage and stay engaged, spanning, affective and relational considerations (Ramey et al., 2015). The literature also suggests that key attributes and critical factors of models of engagement include flexibility, authenticity and diversity of opportunities (Simmons et al., 2021). Research also suggests that enjoyment, concentration and sense of a challenge are important (Ramey et al., 2015). For example, Bowles et al. (2022) suggest that youth engagement can be studied using a four-factor model, which measures future and task focus, planning and motivation, positive roles and models and positive social engagement (Bowles et al., 2022). Some models also consider levels of engagement and shared power (Shier, 2001). Shier (2001) builds on Hart’s (1992) Ladder of Participation, a foundational study which outlines a typology for increased agency, control and power, using the metaphor of a ladder. We felt it important to reference these studies that emphasize measures, but it is important to understand our study’s focus and emphasis, which is on how youth experience and describe engagement. The novelty of our study is based on the dual role that youth play as both researchers and participants in furthering our understanding of this important phenomenon.

In conclusion, there is increasing interest in identifying conditions which promote engagement behaviour because of the potential benefits to positive youth development (Debnam et al., 2014). Our insights may inform future models and/or further study. Additionally, we are responding to the call for an increased understanding of conditions which promote youth engagement (Ramey et al., 2015). Youth well-being is a critical consideration in education, health, community, organizations and family environments. Their well-being is greatly influenced by their access and opportunities but also the extent to which their involvement in various activities contributes to their positive development. Their engagement also hinges on their agency in engagement opportunities; their opportunity to exercise choice and voice.

In the next sections, we highlight other aspects of the literature which we feel offer a relevant primer to our study, and this includes the role of youth motivations in youth engagement, barriers and enabling factors in youth engagement and the development of an internal locus of control in youth, which fosters more independent and accountable behaviours in youth. We conclude our literature review by touching on the interdisciplinary relevance of youth engagement.

Motivation can feature significantly in youth engagement. Motivation stems from a variety of factors, including future goals, beliefs, timeand cognitive engagement (Bowles et al., 2022). Understanding that motivation is either intrinsic or extrinsic, cognitive theory points to the potential efficacy of combining motivational drivers (Bowles et al., 2022). Cognitive theories also emphasize that activities that are planned, tend to contribute to more sustained motivation (Bowles et al., 2022), and this has implications for models of engagement as well as how activities may be organized. Agentic engagement may also be a strong motivational consideration, in that youth able to express agency (voice and choice) may be more psychologically engaged. For example, agentic engagement in learning is considered fundamental to academic success (Bowles et al., 2022). Thus, agency in engagement activities may be a way to amplify engagement or sustain it. Relatedly, meaningfulness and kinship (social connection) to others are integral parts of youth psychological engagement (Ramey et al., 2015). The importance of social connection surfaced in our data as a key motivation.

It would appear that motivation can be ignited or re-ignited when activities are well aligned with a young person’s interests or perception of relevance, and this means that pathways may be charted in which motivations are configured towards goal achievement (Bowles et al., 2022). Motivation to participate may also depend on age and stage of development and thus perceived relevance is critical as motivations may change over time (Ramey et al., 2015). It may also be affected by resilience and adaptive processes (Dion et al., 2013). For example, motivation may need to correspond with an individual’s sense of self-sufficiency and that may be informed by the extent to which they have considered the relationship between personal goals and their engagement in a particular activity (Dion et al., 2013). Understandably, this may change over time and as a young person grows and develops. With that said, motivations, such as enjoyment, feeling fulfilled and empowered can also sustain motivation (Pickering et al., 2022). Additionally, research has pointed to socio-political awareness as increasing motivation in youth (Sprague Martinez et al., 2020). Ultimately, motivation is fostered when activities are meaningful, develop competence and involve agency and kinship (Hart, 1992).

Therefore, we believe that the theoretical entry points relate to how youth describe their own motivations in their own terms, how such motivations may be clustered or configured in various ways and how motivations may shift in relation to a developmental process. Clustering of motivations is a key concern, and it was noted in the data we collected.

In a recent study by Kontak et al. (2022), barriers and enablers were defined as including (1) safe and supportive spaces (environment), (2) passion and interest (intrinsic motivation), (3) an opportunity to exercise voice (agency), (4) power dynamics (i.e., shared power), (5) accessibility and (6) awareness (Kontak et al., 2022). Additionally, some research points to the importance of adults in providing caring and understanding, and an opportunity for youth voice in engagement opportunities (Martínez et al., 2017). Adult involvement was a key enabler/barrier identified in our data set.

Today’s youth (15–24 years old) make up almost 20% of the world’s population and they are better educated than any previous generation (United Nations, 2020). However, youth also suffer from poverty, discrimination and inequality. The social context for youth over the last 20 years highlights persistent issues related to youth experiencing racism, sexism, homophobia, isolation and more (Ginwright and James, 2002). Empowering youth is seen as a way to help youth transcend these challenges and grapple with injustice (Ginwright and James, 2002). Empowerment models in youth are still developing (Angulo-Ruiz and Pergelova, 2015; Williams, 2024). Organizational barriers to engagement also exist and are not well understood (Augsberger et al., 2023). Organizational barriers include adult readiness (preparedness and openness) and organizational readiness (safe and meaningful engagement) (Augsberger et al., 2023).

We see our data contributing to a greater understanding of how to achieve readiness in organizing activities with some practical insights directly from youth. Organizations and adults engaged with youth can increase their readiness for youth engagement by reducing barriers in addition to crafting activities which may otherwise spur other motivation drivers.

For the purposes of this study, it is useful to think of youth engagement as having a relationship with an internally oriented locus of control, and therefore, it can vary individually (Ahlin and Lobo Antunes, 2015). A sense of having control over outcomes, being responsible for consequences stemming from one’s own behaviour and actions, leads to prosocial and proactive personality traits and behaviours (Ahlin and Lobo Antunes, 2015) and thus fosters the potential for self-driven youth engagement. Proactive self-driven engagement begins with an internal locus of control. Therefore, strategies, however well designed and intentioned, may not be successful with youth without an internal locus of control orientation.

An internally oriented locus of control is also linked to well-being (Di Pentima et al., 2019), and an externally orientated locus of control can lead to negative outcomes (Nazareth et al., 2016). Several factors can shape an internal locus of control orientation, including environmental factors (e.g. a supportive environment surfaced in our data) (Ahlin and Lobo Antunes, 2015). Additionally, several strategies can influence a young person’s locus of control, either towards an internal or external orientation. For example, an internal locus of control can be fostered by more independence, while an external locus of control can be fostered by overprotective strategies (Ahlin and Lobo Antunes, 2015). Such orientations are also influenced by various reinforcements and expectations. These reinforcements can be facilitated by peer interactions, family management or even place (context), but they can also be influenced by individual characteristics (Ahlin and Lobo Antunes, 2015). How to shape a locus of control orientation has not been fully explored (Ahlin and Lobo Antunes, 2015), even though it is considered beneficial to youth, leading to the ability to cope, adjust, protect themselves and shape autonomy and independence positively (Ahlin and Lobo Antunes, 2015). In their study, Ahlin and Lobo Antunes (2015) found that family management most significantly shapes an internal locus of control orientation.

Locus of control is considered pliable within youth (Di Pentima et al., 2019). Therefore, we believe that the theoretical entry point for our study is the opportunity to provide data which enrich our understanding of youth’s internal or external orientation in the context of youth engagement. As critical and qualitative researchers, we did not examine it formally as either a moderator or a mediator. We see locus of control as a component of a developmental process which can affect the agentivity of youth engagement.

It is difficult to introduce the concept of locus of control without also discussing youth agency. Locus of control is distinct from agency but contributes to the agentivity of engagement. Where locus of control considers an individual’s developing sense of control, agency speaks to a young person’s capacity to act, express voice and choice. Like locus of control, youth agency is a developmental process. At the level of the individual, agency is understood as the capacity or ability to control the conditions or consequences in a particular situation (Vakil et al., 2023). How youth agency is developed or limited very much depends on the context and experiences of the individual. Youth agency can also be constrained by structural opportunities and uncertainty (Cuzzocrea and Mandich, 2016). Understanding youth agency requires an appreciation for the multitude of intersecting obstacles that are sometimes socially constructed or established structures of power (Jeffrey, 2013). Therefore, some research has focused on adaptability as a measure of agency development (Kiramba et al., 2022). Another way to understand youth agency is to the degree youth express ideas about the future; their optimism, their anticipation and the way that they develop resources or take steps towards that projected future and/or locate themselves in that journey (Cuzzocrea and Mandich, 2016). In this way, youth agency is understood in terms of mobilization towards a future (Cuzzocrea and Mandich, 2016). In both respects, a way for youth to signal their agency is through their own resourcefulness, either through adaptation or through goal achievement (Jeffrey, 2013). However, youth agency is very complex. For the purposes of this study, it is useful to think of youth agency as “young people’s capacity to act positively in relations to surrounding structures […] across space and time” (Jeffrey, 2013, p. 246).

Related to agency is the extent to which youth might feel empowered. Agency is a precondition of empowerment and empowerment at the individual level considers self-perceptions of competence but also active engagement (Zimmerman, 1995). This article expands on an earlier study that examined youth perspectives on empowerment (Williams, 2024). Empowerment is a process whereby individuals gain control or mastery over issues of concern to them (Zimmerman, 1995). In youth, it is a developmental process that first begins with learning about empowerment and proceeds with identifying empowered roles and individuals, through to practicing empowerment in certain situations, to exercising control and or responsibility with power and authority, to finally envisioning a future empowered self (Williams, 2024). Therefore, it is important to understand for this study that youth engagement is conceptualized on a backdrop of entangled developmental processes, including developing an internal locus of control, developing agency and developing psychological empowerment. Additionally, it is also important to understand that all of these processes are participatory in nature (Zimmerman, 1995). In other words, engagement may lead to increased agency, empowerment or an internal locus of control, but similarly, these ideas may also contribute to engagement.

Herein, we consider agentic engagement behaviour as an interdisciplinary concept and comprised of several components. Firstly, agency considers the essence of humanness and the ability to take control over the quality of one’s life (Bandura, 2001). Secondly, and expanding on the notion of agency, agentic engagement is a transformational process of learning (Bowles et al., 2022). Thirdly, it involves both thinking and acting in a new or different way with creative potential (Karwowski and Beghetto, 2019; Williams, 2025). Fourthly, it involves mobility and action (Cuzzocrea and Mandich, 2016; Karwowski and Beghetto, 2019). Therefore, we summarize agentic youth engagement as informed by the literature as a developmental and transformative process involving thinking, acting and experimenting in new ways, resulting in influence and new potentialities. Our data will expand this understanding with youth-informed perspectives and ideas. To do so, we have adopted YPAR and IPA. This methodological approach allows us to integrate youth perspectives into this conceptualization. This is something we found limited in the literature. To do so, we draw on youth’s own lived experience and understanding of their social words (as participants) and youth emic insights through interpretation of data and analysis (as researchers).

As authors, we span three disciplinary frames: organizational studies, higher education and community development. Primarily, we write from and within the field of organizational studies, as this is the primary discipline of the first author and the lead researcher. However, this research is inspired by the context of these different disciplines. It shapes our research design, the literature we reference, our methods, findings and focus. More expansively, youth engagement figures prominently in health promotion studies and psychology studies; however, in this literature, there are clues as to its importance and relevance to organizational studies, higher education and community development. The first obvious entry point is educational environments, where engagement supports student outcomes, academically and otherwise (Kontak et al., 2022). Engagement in a variety of organizational environments has been studied to some degree and the benefits are apparent. For example, Paceley et al. (2019) look at risks for youth with stigmatized identities and how limited involvement with supportive organizations can further isolate them and negatively impact their identity development. Crocetti et al. (2014) investigating the social-cognitive benefits of youth engagement in civic organizations (e.g. volunteering, government, non-political organizations and more) found that low rates of civic engagement affect youth competence, confidence, character, connection and caring abilities. Martínez et al. (2017), while investigating active participation in youth organizations long term, found that significant interaction can lead to powerful effects on youth identity development and even other forms of social political efficacy, including longer term engagement contributing to leadership outcomes.

It is here that this study hopes to contribute to the scholarly discourse on youth engagement, by providing emic insights from youth as to their motivations, their perceptions of barriers and enablers and how their engagement orientation might be influenced. When we refer to emic insights, we mean the ways in which youth contribute their own reading, understanding, knowledge and experience to the research, through methodological engagement. We see the theoretical entry points for our study in the opportunity to enlighten current discourse with emic insights from youth as to their perceptions of motivational drivers and perceived benefits. We believe that the way we can best achieve this is through a youth participatory action research approach.

As authors, we want to acknowledge that this literature review is not exhaustive. We have attempted to focus on the body of literature with which we attempt to both converse with and build upon, but there remains significant and interesting additional scope. For instance, we have not elaborated on how the digital landscape is changing youth engagement and, in some ways, increasing their civic engagement (Banjaji and Buckingham, 2013; Sampaio et al., 2024) or fostering youth activism (Zhang, 2013; Elliott and Earl, 2018). Nor did we review the way that digital futures are reshaping youth programming (Kelly and McGrath, 2024). And finally, we did not explicitly engage with the way that youth are engaged in social media use (Boulianne, 2015).

This is an exploratory phenomenological study. We take a critical, qualitative and action-oriented approach to studying youth engagement. In this section, we review our research design and methodological approach. We explain our choices and offer a detailed rationale. This study not only originates from an interdisciplinary frame (organizational studies, higher education and community development), but it also adopts an interdisciplinary set of methods (YPAR and IPA).

This study expands on an earlier study, published in this journal, which explored youth empowerment (Williams, 2024). That study uses the same methodological approach adopted herein. In that study, youth empowerment was explored using a model of YPAR first established inside a research lab, hosted by a community organization (a registered charity with an educational mandate) and partnered with a Canadian university. The Lab (which houses this model of YPAR) is both a formal developmental program for youth (aged 15–18 years) and a scholarly research lab. Through a partnership with the government’s Department of Education, the Lab is an approved community host, whereby youth in the Lab earn a full high school credit for their involvement as part of a co-operative education program. As co-op students, the youth researchers have been selected into a high school pathway that prioritizes hands-on experiential learning and career exploration, in addition to academics. These youth researchers spend 14 weeks (80 h) in the Lab learning about qualitative research and collecting data using a peer-to-peer approach. The Lab is hosted on a university campus, which further offers youth researchers the opportunity to experience campus life and often demystifies their assumptions about university education.

The youth in the Lab receive mid-term and final evaluations. Evaluations are templated and provided by the Department of Education. These evaluations are qualitative in nature, positively framed and not graded. To inform these evaluations, youth in the Lab have specific requirements and projects to complete, but there is no penalty for incomplete work. These projects include conducting qualitative interviews, presenting their findings to their peers and teachers and completing training in research ethics. They are also asked to prepare reflections about their experience as youth researchers. The Lab is considered a work term placement as co-operative learning is designed to give them experience outside of a traditional classroom. The youth in the Lab are supervised by the first author and lead researcher. This dynamic does create a hierarchical relationship; however, the approach taken by the lead researcher is to empower and mentor vs supervise and evaluate. Evaluation responsibilities rest with their teachers through the cooperative placement process. To date, in the Lab, no youth researcher has been unable to successfully complete program goals for the Lab. For additional insight from youth about their experience in the Lab, please see Williams (2024).

Under supervision, youth learn about the ethical considerations of research, how to identify knowledge gaps and opportunities, how to interview, manage voluntary consent and confidentiality, how to anonymize data, how to code and analyse data, and they contribute to sensemaking, using their own emic insights as youth. Their training includes a review of the ethical considerations of research through the TCPS 2 CORE Tri-Council Panel of Research Ethics Course. Each youth researcher completes all nine modules of the course. Receiving their completion certificate for the ethics course is recognized as a significant milestone in their training. They also learn about knowledge translation and mobilization. The study itself meets the requirements of minimal risk; however, the engagement of youth as both researchers and participants is a bit complex as youth constitute a vulnerable population. The lead researcher must navigate this complexity while also serving as a research mentor and while adhering to the requirements necessitated by the cooperative model set out by the Department of Education. This often involves regular communication to co-op teachers, individual support to youth researchers and group discussions about key ethical questions, such as what data may be too sensitive to include, how data can be stored, how to clean and anonymize data and how to manage confidentiality.

The study is approved through the university research ethics committee, in addition to rules being set by the Department of Education (provincial government). For example, the Department of Education set the following key limitations: (1) youth serving as peer researchers were not permitted to also serve as participants ^[1] and (2) the community organization hosting the Lab was not permitted to recruit participants directly. The ethics committee set additional restrictions, including (1) not being permitted to ask direct demographic information but rather determining eligibility through voluntary participation and (2) adhering to confidentiality and anonymity of all participants. If demographic information was offered during recruitment or interviews, it was noted. However, we were not permitted to directly ask a participant their age, gender identity, social mobility, class, dis/ability and socio-economic circumstances or ethnicity.

Though confidentiality of participants and anonymity of data are common in interview studies, it can present a challenge in YPAR studies, particularly those that are situated in education scholarship, where such factors as demographics may be linked to material outcomes. We felt it was important to our study as well, so we did capture some impressions from the youth researchers themselves about their data, their participants and the experience of conducting the research. Given the close relationships between youth researchers and their peer participants, we have anonymized insights from the youth researchers, though we acknowledge the entire team in the acknowledgements.

In terms of study population, our youth researchers were very diverse in terms of gender identity, ethnicity and culture, dis/ability and socio-economic background. Correspondingly, we surmised that their peer groups were similarly diverse when the entire data set is considered. All youth researchers and their participants are located in rural areas in Atlantic Canada and are between the ages of 15 and 18.

This study features 34 qualitative interviews, conducted by a team of 14 youth researchers. Both youth participants and youth researchers are between the ages 15 and 18 (see Appendix 1 Participant List). We were confident from the outset, based on our research design, the number of researchers we had on the team, the intended number of interviews and the success with data collection in the previous study, that we would achieve data saturation (Rahimi and Khatooni, 2024). However, it is important to note that our study population was limited to a particular rural setting and exploratory in nature and thus not generalizable. Our goal was not theoretical saturation (i.e. grounded theory) but data saturation. Our priority was to engage youth in the exploration of youth agentic engagement as a phenomenon. Data saturation describes a point in data collection whereby new data is thought not to contribute significantly to addressing the research question (Rahimi and khatooni, 2024).

The youth interviewed their peer networks, namely other youth from their social groups. Youth managed the recruitment process, and typically the recruitment of peer groups occurred through school, social, familial or activity-based groups, such as sports or hobbies. We refer to these groups as “peer networks”. Due to restrictions set by the ethics board (stated above), we did not collect demographic information, only ascertained if youth met the basic qualifications for participation: (1) they confirmed they were between 15 and 18 years of age and (2) they provided their written voluntary consent. Youth voluntarily assented to their participation in addition to parents and/or caregivers giving their written permission. Youth in the Lab managed the voluntary consent process under the first author’s close supervision.

The questions in the study were established with youth in the Lab. Our typical approach to developing studies involves the original questions being drafted by the previous cohort from the previous study. In this case, the youth researchers from the youth empowerment study helped to develop the questions for the youth engagement study. We typically host a session to decide what we should study next and how to study it. Each study has typically built on the one before. Our decision to study engagement was inspired by the data we collected on empowerment. We saw in the empowerment data that youth were feeling empowered, usually through various activities they were engaged with, and we wanted to unpack that more. We therefore felt that the previous cohort was well-positioned to draft the initial set of questions.

The first author then took those questions and reviewed the literature to establish how to frame the study. We then re-presented the questions to the youth in the Lab (past and current cohort) and asked them to help us modify the questions so that they could be better understood by other youth. This involved simplifying the questions to the extent possible and developing prompts to help guide the interviewer.

In preparation for interviews, youth were permitted to further adjust questions to ensure that their participants understood what was being asked of them (see Appendix 2 Interview Questions). We conducted mock interviews to ensure the youth felt comfortable beforehand. Interviews generally lasted between 15 and 20 min, but some were shorter or longer. This translated to anywhere from 6 pages to 12 pages or more of transcription data per interview . The length of the interview was considered both for the benefit of the youth researcher and the youth participant and to ensure that the task was not too onerous but still produced rich data. We tried to find a balance between making the interview accessible and our quest for deep data. We also wanted to ensure that each youth researcher conducted three interviews, allowing them to develop a sense of confidence in the process. Correspondingly, we did not want them to be overwhelmed by the data they collected. Perhaps surprisingly, youth did cite significant increases in their confidence over the course of the three interviews. So, while conducting only three interviews does not necessarily translate into proficiency in interviewing, it is our experience that it does build a strong foundation in interviewing skills, comfort in the process and confidence in conducting interviews. For instance, youth tend to become comfortable with re-ordering questions, managing their recordings and pausing and prompting. Youth researchers have also identified the corresponding benefits to conversational skills, where they are able to be more active listeners and more present in conversations.

The depth of YPAR experience for our youth researchers comprised their learning and formal training, their interview experience, working with data and analysing data and knowledge mobilization activities. Our approach is very similar to others with respect to preparing youth to collect data, in that youth were responsible for recruiting participants, explaining the study, collecting consent and administering the interviews (Kontak et al., 2022). We depart from some other approaches in terms of our approach to data analysis and knowledge mobilization, but we very much practice YPAR principles (Anderson, 2020). More on that in the next sections.

Data were collected for this study in the Fall of 2023 and the Winter of 2024. There were two cohorts of youth researchers. The first team (Fall, 2023) had eight members and collected 22 interviews. The second team (Winter, 2024) had five members and collected 13 interviews. Data have been anonymized to protect participant identity, and each participant is represented with a pseudonym. Data for which we did not receive consent has not been included. Interviews were recorded and then transcribed verbatim, using Otter.AI (transcription software). Youth then compared their recordings with the transcriptions to correct errors and remove identifying information. The second author conducted a second round of data cleaning, checking the transcriptions against recordings, anonymizing the data and then organizing the data under the codes identified by the team.

The engagement of youth in the process of research was a relational approach which was ongoing and changeable (Malorni et al., 2022). Though the experience differs slightly with each cohort, it is always a learning process for both senior and junior members of the team. Constituting the team for this study was a lead researcher and first author, the second author is a fourth-year undergraduate student acting as research assistant and student mentor, and a team of youth researchers, which included 14 students from 8 different high schools. Due to the limited term each cohort spent in the Lab (14 weeks), we endeavoured to involve the youth in as many aspects of the research as possible. Significantly, they recruited all participants, explaining the goals and details of the study and managing the informed consent process. They provided input and advice on how to anonymize data. Through an inductive approach, they helped to develop a set of themes emerging from the data. These themes were informed by their own emic insights. These themes were translated into codes, and the youth drove this process of defining these codes and giving examples from the data. This exchange allowed us to create a shared codebook that could be jointly used by all team members.

Forming part of their developmental experience in the Lab, we invited the youth researchers to present on their own interviews to us and their teachers (like a mock academic conference). These sessions, along with other sessions devoted to data analysis, significantly contributed to our understanding of the phenomena under study and produced insights which gave us a sense of how the data fit together. As part of our approach in the Lab, we also invite youth to help translate and mobilise what they have learned in the Lab, and this results in social media posts which they produce; the content of which spans (1) their experience as peer researchers, (2) tips for conducting research (3) interpretations of findings. Thus, they contribute to knowledge translation and knowledge mobilization (a critical aspect of YPAR).

To summarize, youth in the Lab practiced interviews, rehearsed the consent-based conversations and then managed their own interviews. As we elaborate in the next section, they were central to the analysis in that they brought their own interpretations and ideas to our understanding of the data. Youth were also engaged in disseminating findings through social media, which allowed them to distill what they had investigated and communicate it to their peers. We saw this as a material way in which they contributed to change in their own environments, moving from “inception to dissemination” (Funk et al., 2012). They converted these insights into a medium that would be open to youth and those that are in youth-serving roles (via social media). Their knowledge mobilization efforts spanned not just insights from their data, but insights from the experience of becoming researchers. In this way, they not only shared the insights from the study but also shared what they had learned, further promoting their capabilities as researchers. In many ways, they viewed themselves (and rightfully so) as subject matter experts both in terms of YPAR but also in terms of youth engagement. In Figures 1(a–c) and 2(a–c), we offer some examples from the youth researchers in terms of their knowledge mobilization efforts.

Unfortunately, due to the limited time youth serve in the Lab during their co-op term, youth are not engaged in further development of the study. However, the second author completed a detailed literature review, completed all data organization using the developed codes and completed final data cleaning and anonymization. The second author, through her own developmental process as a youth researcher, also contributed to the analysis and, in this case, is responsible for us making the connection between youth engagement and locus of control. The first author served as research lead, designing the study in the context of the literature, addressing ethics, completed all theorizing, deep analysis, development of contributions and writing/editing. Both the first and second authors presented this study at an academic conference.

In the next section, we will unpack our model of YPAR and how youth were engaged. In the section on IPA, we will explain the ways that youth were engaged in the analysis.

YPAR is an interdisciplinary method. There are a variety of approaches which span educational studies (Cammarota and Fine, 2008; Caraballo et al., 2017; Mathikithel and Wood, 2019), psychological studies (Khawaja et al., 2024), social work studies (Cahill et al., 2010), health studies (Abraczinskas and Zarrett, 2020; Hawke et al., 2020; Ozer et al., 2020; Kontak et al., 2022), innovation studies (Sebba et al., 2009; European Commission, 2015) and many other fields. Youth have been engaged in research to study activism, civic engagement and policy (Quijada Cerecer et al., 2013; Garcia et al., 2015; Trott, 2019; Clay and Turner, 2021), youth empowerment (Wagaman et al., 2023), youth behaviour (Funk et al., 2012; Anselma et al., 2020), youth participation in the economy (Rachman et al., 2020) and more. It is an emerging methodology in the discipline of organizational studies (Williams, 2024).

YPAR involves youth in all aspects of the research process (Funk et al., 2012). Youth involvement at each stage can depend on their motivation and interest (Funk et al., 2012). YPAR is about critical engagement with social issues involving youth. It is an approach which fosters youth leadership and voice (Filipiak, 2023). Key debates and critiques are numerous. In an educational context, YPAR runs the risk of becoming “schoolified,” which means that youth are not engaged in a way that leads to true transformation of themselves or the issues they are concerned with (Keddie, 2021; Filipiak, 2023). We considered this in the development of the Lab, and thus it became an important feature of the Lab for it to be away from high schools and involve youth from a variety of different schools (different social groups). Further debates within the education scholarship engage with the utility of YPAR to enact theories of change; YPAR thus acting as a form of “pedagogical possibility” where students can take charge and take action (Jocson and Martínez, 2020, p. 168). A critique that we have discussed in the Lab is that most studies of this kind are evaluating theories of change on youth vs developing theories of change with youth. We intend to explore this in our next study on youth activism and advocacy. More broadly, as a methodology, several scholars have critiqued the quality of “participation” in YPAR and PAR approaches. For instance, Cahill et al. (2010) suggest that participation may refer to a variety of research practices “some of which may not be participatory at all” (p. 408).

Our approach to YPAR is as an equity-based approach in which youth conduct research which is important to them (Abraczinskas and Zarrett, 2020; Ozer et al., 2020). As such, it is viewed as both a research method and an intervention, whereby youth engaged in the process of research are affected by the experience, increasing their sense of empowerment through power-sharing and getting directly involved in actions for change (Abraczinskas and Zarrett, 2020). This has been our experience in the Lab, whereby youth report not only feeling empowered by conducting research but empowered by new knowledge about the phenomena that we study. They also feel valued and on an equal playing field when it comes to the analysis, because they know the data best. Additionally, data resulting from YPAR studies are used to help influence the existential condition of youth (Malorni et al., 2022). In this study, it is important to note that we set out to study youth engagement, but we were simultaneously engaging youth in a program of research. Therefore, we will discuss some of our insights from our own youth engagement experience in the Discussion. This layered nature of our model of YPAR and the subjects we study is something that is becoming increasingly interesting to us. We elaborate on this briefly in the next section.

Facilitating YPAR is not easy. A scoping review conducted by Malorni et al. (2022) found that YPAR is a black box – meaning that how to enact YPAR is not well understood. Though powerful and designed to advance both research and action, it is also difficult to achieve authentic engagement with youth, and there is a lack of transparency in how the research is conducted (Malorni et al., 2022). We draw on (Williams, 2024) methodological design herein. In the previous study, which examined youth empowerment, we explored the process of involving youth in research, the steps taken and the meaningful engagement with youth, including how to share power. To summarize (Williams, 2024), the steps involved in this YPAR model endeavour to engage youth as co-leaders with empowering and emancipatory intentions (Keddie, 2021). Youth in our Lab are trained by first learning about the sociology of knowledge process, they then learn the difference between qualitative and quantitative approaches and the research philosophies that underpin those approaches. This gave them confidence about the research design and intention and empowered them in data collection. Additionally, the youth in the Lab understand that the studies we conduct are exploratory (not confirmatory) and that, as such, we would be starting without pre-conceived ideas about youth engagement. They therefore understood the merits of a qualitative approach as well suited to exploratory, phenomenological inquiry.

Understandably, their experience (and training) reflects the first author’s expertise, who served as supervisor and mentor ^[2]. The first author is inspired by the work of Caitlyn Kahill, in particular, who explores the rituals of collective work with youth (Cahill, 2016), the praxis orientation of YPAR (Quijada Cerecer et al., 2013) and links to social justice and feminism (Cahill et al., 2010).

This paper reports on the findings of our second study in the Lab. We therefore wish to briefly comment on how our model of YPAR has evolved from the last study to this one. The most significant adjustments concern the youth involved. The youth acting as researchers and their participants were drawn from an urban area and, in some cases, a city setting in the first study. For this study, the youth were all located in a rural environment. In part, we believe that the aspects of the Lab which serve as a developmental opportunity for youth are better served in a rural environment, where there are more limited options for youth. However, it is our intention in future to ultimately have several sites as we are highly motivated by the positive developmental experiences offered in the Lab.

As the Lab serves as a co-operative opportunity, with each youth member earning a full high school credit for their involvement, it is critically important that the Lab provide an excellent experience. Therefore, we have continued to work extremely closely with our partners at the Department of Education. As a result, some of our associated programming in the Lab has been adjusted. We have incorporated program evaluation, whereby youth in the Lab turn their research skills towards the Lab itself to critically offer ideas for how the Lab can be improved for the next cohort. They evaluate the Lab across its five goals, which span both the interests of the community organization hosting the Lab, but also the Department of Education. These goals are: (1) collect effective data on issues that matter to youth, (2) use a peer-to-peer research approach, (3) teach high school students to become effective researchers, (4) allow students to experience a co-op that earns them a high school credit and (5) allow students to explore career futures involving research. Key additions to the overall program of the Lab include a new youth panel, where university students meet with the youth in the Lab to discuss their burning questions about adulthood. Our career exploration is now nested in the university where the Lab takes place and faculty across the university serve as career mentors and share their own research journeys and areas of expertise. High school teachers are also asked to participate in program evaluation to ensure that the program is meeting their needs. As a result, the Lab is thriving and it has become a favoured destination for co-op students, with typically one or more students coming from as many as eight or more schools each term (two terms per study, per year). We now have significant data on the Lab itself and the experience the youth in Lab have, and this has resulted in a forthcoming book where we look forward to sharing more detailed insights in long form.

Another significant insight from developing this model of YPAR over several studies is that the insights are becoming even more layered. For instance, our first study, on youth empowerment, was not just a study on what youth had to say about empowerment. It turned out to be a study that examined (to some degree) how youth became empowered while studying empowerment. Similarly with this study, on youth engagement, we cannot help but consider not only what youth have to say about youth engagement but also examine how the Lab is effectively engaging youth. Additionally, across all of our studies, youth, while studying various topics, are evolving their own ideas about these subjects. We spoke to this briefly in the last study (Williams, 2024). Their ideas and thinking expand over time, through interviews and data analysis discussions and through to knowledge mobilization exercises. Therefore, the experience of the YPAR model itself is transformative. We believe that this is consistent with other experiences of YPAR research but acknowledge that it is not discussed enough. Our experience corresponds to what we have read about other YPAR models. They have the potential to increase youth empowerment, their sense of belonging, agency and, of course, their capacity to educate and take action (Cammarota and Fine, 2008; Ozer et al., 2013). However, we acknwoledge, it is an ongoing relational practice that requires constant care and nurturing.

IPA helps to explore lived experiences and considers how participants “make sense of their personal and social world” (Smith and Osborn, 2004, p. 54). It assumes a connection between what people say, their thinking and their emotional state (Smith and Osborn, 2004). We adopted Smith and Osborn’s approach to IPA because they offer well-defined steps which are easy to deploy with youth (Smith and Osborn, 2004, 2015). IPA’s theoretical underpinnings are linked to a commitment to discovering meaning as a way to understand cognition, namely how participants perceive and make sense of their individual experiences (Smith and Osborn, 2004).

We selected IPA as our form of analysis because it actively considers that both researchers and participants are sense-making when participating in research. We understood from the onset that our participants may not have considered our topic of research very much before we spoke to them. We also took for granted that, as young persons, their thinking about certain social phenomena would still be developing. Thus, we understood that our data would represent a state of developing thought for each participant. Simultaneously, we as a research team were also developing our thinking about youth engagement, and this thinking evolved as youth conducted their interviews and through discussions we had as a research team. This commitment to an unfolding understanding in analysis is considered a central analytical concern in IPA (Smith and Osborn, 2004).

Additionally, IPA made sense because it typically draws on small sample sizes to understand a deeper level of detail and is not concerned with generalizations (Smith and Osborn, 2004). It is therefore important to consider that the data in this study have been analysed at the individual level. IPA typically starts with a homogeneous sample for whom the inquiry is significant vs finding a random or representative sample. In our case, the sample is drawn from youth of a certain age, living in a similar region in Canada, though we note diversity within the sample on a more discrete level. In this way, IPA functions analogously to social anthropology and ethnographic research, where findings may speak to a particular group vs a larger population (Smith and Osborn, 2004).

In terms of sample size, this is generally guided by trying to find a balance between two factors: (1) the commitment to deep analysis and interpretation and (2) the constraints set by the capacity of the research team. In our case, we were simultaneously teaching youth to be researchers, supervising the study and helping make sense of the interviews. This set a limit whereby youth peer researchers were restricted to no more than eight members per team, and no more than three interviews per youth researcher. As previously stated, even with these parameters, we believe we achieved data saturation.

Our analysis followed the steps outlined by Smith and Osborn (2004). Specifically, we first transcribed our interviews and then began looking for key themes. Our initial insights very quickly took the tenor of motivations for why youth tended to engage and stay engaged. We started by looking at a single interview, then a second and a third and so on. This process involved the entire research team collectively reading each transcript and identifying initial themes. Reading was combined with open conversations. We did this together. This generated an initial code list with both definitions and descriptions. We collectively defined each code in the context of our collective understanding (vs a dictionary definition). We also identified some strong examples from the data. Our codes were either descriptive or in vivo codes. This means that our codes either described our impression of the participants’ own words or we used the very words provided by the participants. For example, “altruism” was a descriptive code, whereas “enjoyment” was an in vivo code.

To facilitate our group engagement as we completed the original codebook, we used a software called Padlet, which is a cloud based, bulletin board. This allowed all parties to access the developing codebook at the same time. Therefore, the exercise involved both talking and writing, as a group (synchronously and asynchronously). We used this first stage of analysis to not only describe the code or theme, but also to indicate where the code was showing up (what kinds of activities). This inductive approach was followed by a deductive approach in which we looked for the codes we had identified in other transcripts. As a result, by the end of our first stage of analysis, we felt we had a comprehensive list of codes, their definitions and a description, some exemplars, as well as a comprehensive list of activities (or what constituted where engagement was happening).

Our next stage of analysis involved connecting themes (Smith and Osborn, 2004). After we had our themes and codes established, we then looked for relationships between the themes. This is when it became evident that our themes were either (1) motivations or (2) enablers or barriers. This is what Smith and Osborn refer to as analytical or theoretical ordering. The result is a clustering of codes or themes by virtue of our sense-making and close reading.

The final stage of analysis involved organizing the data in a coherent manner to communicate findings. We elected to use tables to do so but have drawn out specific examples to clarify our points and arguments. To share our preliminary findings, we produced a one-page Fact Sheet (see Figure 3 Fact Sheet) which summarizes the classifications of motivations and enablers and barriers.

The development of a shared codebook is a key milestone in the Lab. It is an activity where the youth really shine in terms of their contributions to the analysis and in terms of the insights that they offer, which often helps to decode the transcripts further for more meaning. Another key milestone is when the research team regroups to present to the team (and their teachers) the insights they found in their own research, talking at length about each of their interviews and their interpretations of the data. This additional analysis often highlights new codes and deepens our understanding of the codes already established. It is in this session that the youth offer their own ideas about implications as well. It was in the research presentations that one of our youth researchers first observed a clustering of motivations, which we speak to in the next section. We believe that this was a significant contribution to the analysis.

In this section, we review our findings. We begin with an overview of what youth considered associated activities where engagement may occur. This is not an exhaustive list, but it is a diverse one. We continue with insights associated with youth motivations or drivers to be engaged. We continue with enablers and barriers to engagement that the youth described. We conclude this section with insights from the data that indicate the importance of locus of control orientation and the role of agency.

As a start to our inquiry, we tried to capture the breadth and scope of activities which constituted settings for youth participation and thus for potential youth engagement. We have organized the information so that our readers might understand where and how this data might be used. Speaking in terms of context, the list is quite diverse and speaks to potential organizational, educational, community and other informal contexts where engagement may occur. It also confirms one of our introductory statements, in that we believe our study does not just advance scholarly discourse but also has practical implications for those that work with, or support youth, in a variety of settings.

According to the youth in our study, youth participation encompasses a range of activities from formal to informal, skilled to unskilled and individual to collective. Their engagement spans different frames from obligatory to pleasure-seeking, physical to body-fixed and educational to nescient (see Table 1, Example of Engagement Activities). The youth in our study talked about everything from deeply exciting or engrossing activities through to the casual and mundane.

For example, formal opportunities involved things like clubs, work and personal projects:

When participants started to make the connection with some of the barriers and enablers we were surfacing, they also began citing more mundane activities, such as hygiene and even self-care – essentially anything that took up time. To provide additional insight into the kinds of activities our participants cited, please see Table 1 for Examples of Engagement Activities.

As described in our section about our IPA steps, motivations quickly became one way we made sense of the data and clustered it. We identified nine key motivations; however, we think that there may be many more and future research could investigate and identify those. We also think that there is overlap between what might be considered a motivation and what might be considered a barrier or enabler. The motivations we speak to in this study were defined by youth, in that we used their emic understanding of the theme to define it and describe it.

In the previously referenced Figure 3, we have detailed the motivations, their definitions, and we have provided an example from our participants. In Table 2, we provide additional examples from our dataset.

What is interesting about the motivations youth cite is that where there is a convergence of motivations (i.e. a coming together, clustering or combination of motivations for the individual engaged), the inclination to engage seems to be higher. We see this convergence of motivations operating on the individual level but also potentially at the organizational level where the environment is concerned. What may be interesting to explore in future research is how these motivations respond to enablers, especially that of the environment. However, as an exploratory study, we were unable to probe this idea further.

An example of this convergence of motivations is evident in Eve’s interview, where she references a combination of money, socialization, sense of belonging and learning:

Similarly, George cites a combination of enjoyment, escapism and accomplishment:

We do believe that there is enormous potential to perhaps influence engagement by combining motivational factors, though we appreciate how difficult this is to achieve.

A secondary data cluster focused on what our participants viewed as either facilitating factors or inhibiting factors, and we describe these as either enablers or barriers. However, we also quickly learned that such factors may be one in the same, either acting as an enabler or a barrier or both. In other words, they could be seen as positively or negatively described by our participants, depending on context.

For example, looking at the enabler/barrier of adult intervention, Oscar talks of his mother as being in a role that has shifted overtime to become more enabling:

Whereas Annie talks of conflicting behaviours in the adults around her:

In Table 3, Barriers and Enablers, we describe various barriers and enablers from our data and provide examples. Each example is listed as both an enabler and barrier because it was our observation that they could be both. We therefore provide both positive and negative examples for each (see Table 4).

We did note that the theme environment functions a bit differently from the others. For example, Brittany talks of the need for environments to be inclusive, foster learning and acceptance and create opportunities:

Therefore, we conclude that the environment can be both a motivation and an enabler or barrier. As a result, it could be where motivations converge most prominently, with the promise of cross-cutting at the individual and organizational level and thus be a particularly important factor in agentic youth engagement.

Additionally, we recognize that there are other overlaps with barriers/enables and motivations. Indeed, the data reflected this. For example, an adult figure may serve as a motivational force in terms of their relationship, speech acts or disposition towards a young person. However, they may also be seen as an enabler or a barrier in their concrete actions or inactions, either facilitating access or not. We therefore see some indication of the complexity of certain relationships and how this complexity may play out in the context of engagement. We saw sufficient referencing to these enabling factors to isolate them for analysis and presentation of findings. In doing so, we also hope to promote further investigation and study.

Our data points to the relatively diverse impression of both internal and external orientated locus of control in our participant group. Our insights into this data emerged later in the study and involved a close reading of the data in relation to the literature by our second author. In other words, locus of control was not something we directly probed, nor sought to measure, but rather the orientation was revealed upon deeper analysis of the data. Our observation is that there was evidence of clear internal and external orientation, but for some, there was also the impression of a developing internal orientation. We believe that this points to a related developmental process happening in the young person we were interviewing.

For example, on the one hand, Oliva cites schoolwork as an external block to engagement:

However, she also states that she is motivated to engage and appears empowered to do so:

Similarly, Oscar cites time and mental readiness as a barrier:

However, in another instance, Oscar’s interests and apparent choice are a strong driver:

Ashley also shows that too many activities can be a perceived barrier:

Whereas she also shows agency (choice and voice) here:

Again, we interpret these variations as an indication of development, intrinsic to youth maturation and changing world views. We therefore view locus of control as increasing the pliability of our conception in terms of how youth engagement is experienced at the individual level vs a formal mediating role. In a final example, Blake illustrates how an internal locus of control orientation is developing both in terms of awareness but also in terms of seeing oneself in an expanded role:

Future research may consider how a locus of control orientation operates on engagement more explicitly. In terms of our data, participants seemed to show either a propensity towards an external or internal orientation and we see the internal orientation as positively related to engagement. See Table 1, Locus of Control, for additional examples from our data set.

Here, we return to our theoretical entry points to discuss the implications of the data. As noted in the data from this study, a confluence of motivations seems to foster and potentially contribute to sustained engagement. Many of our participants talked of more than one motivation in the context of a particularly important activity. For example, Eve cited a combination of learning opportunities with social connections. Oliva cited social connection alongside a sense of accomplishment. David cited an educational imperative along with proficiency. We believe that this clustering is insightful. It not only tells us why youth are engaged, but it potentially reveals the ways in which we can configure activities to either engage youth for the first time, keep them engaged or re-engage them.

Youth provided a wealth of information about why they chose to get involved and why they stayed involved. We believe that a confluence of motivational factors is critical. We also believe that the environment is critical. Environmental considerations seemed to transcend other factors. Environmental considerations include youth feeling safe, feeling comfortable, feeling supported by adults and having agency (voice and choice). Additionally, we feel it might be valuable to consider environmental factors at the micro, meso and macro levels of analysis, though this was not the scope of our study. For example, how are environmental factors shaped by individuals, how are they shaped by group dynamics and how are they shaped by structural or organizational factors? Regrettably, we did not have an opportunity to consider these deeper questions, but we believe they are worth further study. In this respect, our study offers significant new clarity but also presents several new lines of potential inquiry.

Our participants were insightful with respect to what they revealed about enablers and barriers. If organizations and adults are to enhance their readiness (Augsberger et al., 2023), our participants suggest that there are key conditions for success. For example, adults need to allow for agency [Lucas], they need to be positively, and constructive helpful [Evan] and they need to help youth find time and keep time by not overburdening them [Oscar; Brittany]. Organizations need to provide sufficient access and be easy to get to [Mila; Evan] but they also need to address limitations in space and opportunities [Louis; Aria]. Organizations also need to think about physical access, and the onerousness or excessive stress of activities [Amy; Mila; Annie; Kaylee]. And perhaps most importantly, these variables will vary across different contexts and may even be individualized. Even still, the operationalization of enablers is something we feel has practical benefit.

In terms of locus of control orientation, our participants typically fell into either an external or internal orientation. Since data was not directly collected on locus of control, our analysis lacks some clarity on this point. Some of our participants were less clear about an internal or external orientation, and we took this to mean that their locus of control was indeed pliable (Di Pentima et al., 2019). We find this encouraging. If family management is indeed a significant factor in the development of an internal locus of control (Ahlin and Lobo Antunes, 2015), then an internal locus of control can be fostered, and this may enhance a young person’s proactivity, autonomy and self-sufficiency towards engagement. It may also reduce the perceived barriers associated with engagement. Both an internal locus of control and youth engagement are positive contributors to youth development.

Turning the analysis inward, while studying youth engagement, we were simultaneously engaging youth in a research project. The Lab, as a scholarly research lab and a developmental program for youth, has had to address these same parameters to get youth engaged and keep them engaged, as other formal activities might. The Lab has now completed three studies. Six youth teams (or cohorts) have now gone through the Lab program. We have learned a great deal not only about youth issues, but also about working with and engaging with youth. The findings from our study resonate with our experience in the Lab. For example, youth enjoy working on a project that has a higher purpose (altruism), they like the responsibility of doing something important and the feeling that comes from making an important contribution to the study (responsibility, accomplishment). They enjoy learning to become researchers, becoming better and better at interviewing and contributing to the analysis in fundamental ways (education imperative, proficiency). They have even spoken about how much they like the Lab as something separate from home, school and the usual pressures of their life (escapism, environment). We believe we also achieved something that was more nascent in our data, in that our youth had a voice and choice. Their choice in coming into the Lab is a voluntary one. They were put in a position of power and were given the opportunity to share what they learned and be valued for it. In the previous study (Williams, 2024), the first author reviews aspects of the YPAR model that make it successful and many of those features correspond to conditions for increasing agentivity in youth engagement, including (1) creating a safe place, (2) building in value, (3) not underestimating youth and (4) reminding youth of their value. We believe that the Lab has created an environment where a convergence of motivational drivers is possible, and we think this is instructive for other organizational contexts.

In this study, we believe we have exercised in practice some of the learning from the findings on youth engagement in a formal organizational environment and found them to be sound. In this respect, we have illustrated the praxis orientation of our model of YPAR. Youth cited a variety of motivations in combination with the environment of the Lab, along with their own internally oriented locus of control. This has promoted agentivity in their engagement. We look forward to continuing to explore what we have learned in practice.

To bring together the data with the extant literature and our own observations, we offer the following developing conceptualization of agentic youth engagement (see Figure 4 Conceptualizing Agentic Youth Engagement).

As evidenced by Figure 4, we believe that a convergence of motivations, plus an internal locus of control orientation, plus the environment may lead to sustained youth engagement. This conceptualization illustrates the relational aspects of individual and organizational factors which contribute to agentivity. Agency is important, but enablers and barriers materially amplify or decrease the performance of motivators. Theoretically, we believe that these motivations can be explored further individually and relationally in terms of how they operate. Similarly, we believe that the relationship between motivations and barriers and enablers can be explored further in terms of their effects and similarities/differences. At the organizational level, these insights may offer practical benefit for those that are crafting engagement activities and trying to understand how to better configure both the activity and the factors supporting the activity. For instance, to what degree do enablers strengthen the effects of motivations and reduce the necessity for motivational convergence? We also believe that our conception inspires further study to examine to what degree an internal locus of control orientation also operates as an amplifying factor. In which case, the activity and those organizing it may need to worry less about the factors surrounding the activity and more on the nature of the activity itself. Similarly, to what degree does youth agency (voice and choice) shift these dynamics, the environment or the agentic properties of engagement (youth’s ability to plan, participate and benefit from engagement)? We believe our study has opened several new opportunities for future research, which may be studied quantitatively or qualitatively and which may draw interest from scholars from a variety of different disciplines.

Returning to our working definition of agentic youth engagement and our research question, we would add some additional ideas. We believe that our data support the idea that it is a development and transformative process involving thinking, acting and experimenting in new ways, resulting in influence and new potentialities. But we also believe that our data expands this conceptualization by illustrating the myriads of factors at play. Motivations, along with enablers and barriers, can leverage the quality of engagement and contribute to its sustainability. Locus of control and agency may very well suppress barriers or help youth navigate through them. We therefore add to our earlier definition that agentic youth engagement is an ongoing, relational activity, operating at the individual and organizational level. It is facilitated by a convergence of motivations, an internally oriented locus of control, agency and environment. Therefore, agentic youth engagement necessitates a convergence of youth motivations experienced at the individual and organizational level and such engagement is an ongoing, relational process. Our data gives new shape to the context surrounding engagement and factors that contribute to agentivity.

Our final thoughts turn to implications we note for the disciplinary frames we introduced at the outset, particularly that of organizational studies. We hope that our study points to the opportunities for engagement research, along with potential strategies for those interested in engaging youth in positive developmental activities. Though we have concentrated on the contributions to theorizing, we also see the potential benefits in practical terms, as we experienced them ourselves in the Lab. We do hope that this study inspires those working with youth to think differently about how they engage youth, the factors that will foster and sustain their engagement (at the level of the individual, group or organization). The benefits to youth engaged in developmental activities are clear, particularly the cross-cutting benefits identified in the literature and illustrated in our data, whether it be formal activities such as learning and work linked to cognitive development or more informal environments and activities linked to social and emotional development.

In this study, we set out to explore youth engagement, adopting a model of YPAR combined with IPA. We contribute to the extant literature with an insiders’ view, whereby youth were empowered to conduct research involving other youth and explore an issue that matters to them. The findings in this study contribute to furthering our understanding of agentic youth engagement as a phenomenon and offer entry points for future areas of inquiry. This study also contributes to the literature on youth participatory action research. Relatedly, our findings contribute to conceptualizing agentic youth engagement and include insights into how to potentially shape and promote an internal locus of control in youth as an important factor for engagement, and how to adopt strategies in various organizational contexts (environment) which may promote or sustain engagement behaviour in youth. We offered up a conceptualization of agentic youth behaviour as informed by the literature and our data, and in so doing, we offer two related findings which contribute to our growing understanding of agentic youth engagement: (1) a convergence of motivations may be necessary to foster engagement. (2) This convergence may assist in helping to shape an internal locus of control and thus lead to agentic youth engagement. We also believe the environment holds a tremendous amount of potential, especially because we see it as operating as both a motivator and an enabler (especially if associated activities also promote personal agency). As such, a positive and supportive environment also seems to be a place for potential motivational convergence.

Our final thoughts turn to future research but also future practices. We believe that future research might consider an intervention whereby some of the elements we have surfaced are tested through a confirmatory study design. We believe that it would be interesting to consider the configuration of activities to see if this influences the time or length of engagement and if this will surface other organizational factors necessary to foster or sustain engagement over time. We see the potential implications across both formal and informal organizational contexts, including work, school and other important developmental opportunities for youth, such as sports, arts and/or civic engagement. Feedback we received while completing this manuscript also suggested possible opportunities to explore leadership factors, and we see this playing out in terms of both adult leadership in organizing such activities but also in engaging youth in leadership behaviours as a possible dimension of attachment. Additionally, the role of the environment needs to be unpacked further, and this may be useful to study at different levels: personal, group or organizational levels.

In terms of what is next for our Lab, our youth researchers are interested in another exploratory, phenomenological study, which will look at youth engagement in advocacy and activism and their role in social change and social justice-based activities. We believe that there is an opportunity to explore how youth can co-create a theory of change model. The current study, in which data collection is complete, has been examining youth employment and underemployment and our initial analysis points to the need to create more inclusive environments for youth at work. The Lab will continue to be driven by the wisdom and curiosity of our youth researchers. We look forward to where that takes us next!

The authors would like to thank the 2023–2024 cohorts: Sav McGrath, Zofya Handley, Luther Stronach, Hannah Mainwaring, Maxx Dominey, Elandra Kenny, Vicky Martinez, Sofia Tomek, Ethan Morse, Sam Davis, Rebekah Levy, Makaylee Tidd, Dawn Fredricks and Myfanwy Pozzolo; and their teachers Mike Smith, Jen Hall, Heather Hiscock, Nancy Litwin, Adam Bunin, Donald Beck, Rebekah Wheadon and Jonathan Marshall. We are also grateful for the support of Kim Duncan and Andrew Seymore.

The supplementary material for this article can be found online.