Often action research methodology intends to produce social change and involves partnerships between academic researchers and community members or organizations (Payne & Payne, 2004). The goal of RE Sources was to develop a space within the organization for youth voice. My goal was to determine how participating in a space like this impacts the political self- efficacy of the participants. In order to achieve the first goal, I conducted interviews with both program coordinators and community members. The data gained through these methods helped me determine best practices for encouraging youth-voice.
Program Coordinators
Interviews are a common strategy used when researchers are interested in learning from educators and coordinators regarding their goals, challenges, and successes with youth
programming. Collecting and synthesizing information related to how others have developed similar programs is important for informing program design (Rothman & Thomas, 1994). With this information, the program developer can build on successful models and learn from
29
have created opportunities for youth-voice, I conducted interviews with program coordinators from five different organizations: Climate Generation, Woodland Park Zoo, Seward Audubon Society, Evanston Township High School, and an Alaska-based environmental organization. Each organization varied in their approach, but they all had one common goal, which was to support youth as they took action on issues and causes that were important to them. The degree to which these young people were taking action varied from service projects to advocating for policy change on a state level. These coordinators were found through both colleague
recommendations and an internet search. I used search terms such as “youth environmental action”, “youth social justice,” and “youth organizing.” I found the remaining interviewees through the snowball method (Patton, 2002). I used a semi-structured phone interview approach (Patton, 2002), which allowed for the conversations to take natural turns. The interviews
typically lasted between 30 minutes and 1 hour. I recorded the interviews, except for one interview where the recording did not work. I also took thorough notes during each interview. Examples of interview questions:
1) What are the main goals of this program? 2) What inspired this program?
3) How do you encourage the youth to reflect on program activities?
4) How do you foster and encourage youth autonomy in decision-making and action planning?
Community Members
In the process of developing an intervention, it is important that the researcher work collaboratively with members and relevant actors in the community (Fraser & Galinsky, 2010). This process involves speaking with key informants to determine local problems, needs, and strengths (Fraser & Galinsky, 2010). In order to better understand the specific needs for youth voice within Whatcom County, I conducted semi-structured interviews with community members. I identified these individuals by internet searches and from recommendations by
30
colleagues and employees at RE Sources. In order to include a variety of perspectives, my criteria for interview subjects was only that they had to have experience working with young people in the area. I conducted five interviews with community members. These individuals included educators, consultants, and foundation employees. The interviews typically lasted between 30 minutes and one hour. A few of these interviews were recorded, but thorough note- taking was my primary method of documentation. Before the analysis, I digitally transcribed all audio and notes.
Examples of Interview Questions:
1. What issues most directly impact youth in Whatcom County?
2. What are the most pressing environmental issues in Whatcom County? How do these impact youth?
3. To what degree are youth taking action on these issues? What are some examples, if any, of how youth have taken action in this community?
Surveys with Youth
For my final pre-implementation method, I intended to survey 30 teenagers in Whatcom County regarding their interest in opportunities to take action, as well as more logistical
information such as which days of the week they have the most availability. This survey can be found in Appendix E. The survey included questions directed at both quantitative and qualitative data. The participants were a convenience sample. RE Sources has a relationship with a local teacher who agreed to distribute the surveys. These teenagers live in the county and have varying interests and experiences. The participants did not have an expressed interest in civic-
engagement or the committee. Unfortunately, I was not able to connect with the teacher again and these results were not collected. Therefore, in order to collect this information, I personally asked the participants questions from the survey in our first meetings. I asked the participants about concerns they had in their communities and barriers they faced taking action.
31 Examples of Survey Questions:
1. In the past, what has prevented you from participating in activities that interest you? 2. What do you think are the most pressing issues in your community?
3. What do you think are the most pressing environmental issues in your community? 4. What are you most proud of in your community?
5. During the months of February and March, which days of the week are you typically busy? Please provide your best estimate.
Analysis
I summarized all interviews into text and then analyzed them through inductive coding (Bernard, 2006). This approach allowed my understanding to develop through close analysis of the transcriptions. My process began with simply reading the texts and underlining information I felt would be important as we strategized how to engage youth. Once patterns began to appear, I began creating thematic categories. Using the cut and paste feature in a Word document, I then used a pile-sorting method (Bernard, 2006) to group common quotes and insights together. The themes that emerged were then summarized.
Recruitment
In order to recruit youth to participate in this committee, I created an application and sent it to schools and community organizations throughout Whatcom County. RE Sources also sent the application to their contact lists for their education programs. I visited two schools and gave a PowerPoint presentation on YEP!. We sent applications out in January 2018. Interested teens had one month to apply. In order to be eligible, participants had to live in the county and be in high school (i.e. 9th, 10th, 11th, or 12th grade). The application was made available via a webpage we
created for the YEP! (See Appendix H). We received 12 applications and accepted all of them. The application can be found in Appendix G. Based on insights gleaned from my interviews, the main criterion we used for participation was a clearly indicated enthusiasm for participating in
32
the committee. Once the members were chosen, they were notified via phone and email. Our first meeting occurred at the end of February 2018.