3Revista de Cercetare si Interventie Sociala ISSN: 1583-3410 (print), ISSN: 1584-5397 (electronic) Revista de cercetare și intervenție socială, 2021, vol. 75, pp. 28-52 https://doi.org/10.33788/rcis.75.2 Published by: Expert Projects Publishing House On behalf of: „Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University, Department of Sociology and Social Work and HoltIS Association E expert projects publishing PARTICIPATORY ACTION RESEARCH AND PARTICIPATORY EVALUATION. ANALYSIS OF TWO METHODOLOGICAL APPROACHES TO PROMOTE YOUTH AGENCY AND PARTICIPATION Héctor NÚÑEZ, Asun LLENA BERÑE, Núria FABRA FRES, Miquel GÓMEZ SERRA REVISTA DE CERCETARE SI INTERVENTIE SOCIALA - VOLUMUL 75/2021 28 1 University of Barcelona, Department of Theory and History of Education, Barcelona, SPAIN. E-mail: hectornunez@ub.edu 2 University of Barcelona, Department of Theory and History of Education, Barcelona, SPAIN. E-mail: allena@ub.edu 3 University of Barcelona, Department of Theory and History of Education, Barcelona, SPAIN. E-mail: nfabra@ub.edu 4 University of Barcelona, Department of Theory and History of Education, Barcelona, SPAIN. E-mail: mgomez@ub.edu Participatory Action Research and Participatory Evaluation. Analysis of Two Methodological Approaches to Promote Youth Agency and Participation Héctor NÚÑEZ1, Asun LLENA BERÑE2, Núria FABRA FRES3, Miquel GÓMEZ SERRA4 Abstract Participatory action research and participatory evaluation are two approaches used to involve people in public aff airs, fostering the shared construction of knowledge. Recent decades have seen an increase in the involvement of agents in public activity, a trend that is also evident among young people. Experiences based on youth participatory action research and participatory youth evaluation are discussed in the literature. The main aim of this article is to defi ne these two methodological approaches, and discuss: the role played by agents, the functions implemented, and the main stages. To this end, we have used a systematic documentary analysis of databases and specialist journals between 2010-2021. The results produce a map of internationally published articles regarding participatory action research and participatory youth evaluation. Secondly, a check-list is provided of the two methodological approaches to youth participation; this compiles the functions of the agents involved and the stages involved in both approaches. The article aims to be of use to public administrations and social entities with decision-making powers over actions that favour the involvement of young people in public aff airs. Keywords: participatory evaluation, participatory research-action, empowerment, youth, community action, research. 29 REVISTA DE CERCETARE SI INTERVENTIE SOCIALA - VOLUMUL 75/2021 Introduction Since no single individual can answer a society’s social needs, any complex democratic society requires the contribution of all institutional actors, both public and private. Civic participation strengthens the State’s institutions, contributing to eff ective government (Putman, 1993). While, as Hardy & Phillips (1998) note, these relations may not always be easy, strategies must be found to facilitate them. Recent decades have seen an increased interest in making people the pivot and centre of social action. This can be seen in: a) the design and implementation of policies promoting proximity in the management of public resources, favouring horizontal, relational models (Gore & Wells, 2009; Herrera & Caston, 2003); b) increased partnership between Public Administrations and civil organizations in the design, implementation, and evaluation of social and educational initiatives (Laperrière, Potvin, & Zuñiga, 2012); c) the orientation of evaluation towards integrating, comprehensive, and participatory models (Guba & Lincoln, 1989). Such a context calls for a reconsideration of methodological strategies. Qualitative methodology has begun to be used in social actions and evaluation processes, framing them within specifi c institutional and political contexts: people’s concerns, experience, and knowledge are covered in the design, implementation, and evaluation of social programmes. There is also a re-examination of the relations of power established between subjects with technical knowledge, and those who possess the popular knowledge to use a programme or service. In the current context, and bearing in mind the debate regarding the political participation of young people, searching for strategies that facilitate their participation is logical. It is, thus, about analysing strategies that enable their participation in public aff airs. This article will cover two in depth. Qualitative methodology approaches or work strategies that foster youth participation are participatory action-research (hereafter, PAR), and participatory evaluation (hereafter, PE) processes. Some authors argue that one of the benefi ts of PAR is that it is a methodological approach that promotes the abilities of young people to strengthen their own agency (Ritterbusch, Boothby, Mugumya, Wanican, Bangirana, et al., 2020); while Aldana, Richards-Schuster & Checkoway, (2016) note that the strategy that has served to give a voice to socially under-represented or marginalized groups, such as Afro-American youth. In the United States, PAR has been used when working with young people to examine and assess health inequalities; the impact of violence on the development of their lives; multi- culturalism and socio-economic inequalities (Cammarota & Fine, 2010); factors that infl uence academic success at secondary school (Kornbluh, Ozer, Allen, & Kirshner, 2015); as well as infl uencing the design of local administration educational policies (Warren & Marciano, 2018), among other subjects. PE increases the use of evaluation processes, foments the representativeness of the values of those groups involved in decision-making, and promotes the empowerment of people and their rights in the evaluation itself (Papineau & REVISTA DE CERCETARE SI INTERVENTIE SOCIALA - VOLUMUL 75/2021 30 Kiely, 1996). PE with young people is a strategy used to enable them to express their experiences and opinions, identify problems and search for solutions (Exner-Cortens, Sitter, Van Bavel, & Wright 2021; Richards-Schuster, Wernick, Henderson, Bakko, Rodríguez et al., 2021). Over recent decades a number of evaluative approaches have been generated, oriented towards a participation that favours some aspects over others. All of these increase the participation of people who lack technical experience in evaluation, not just as mere informers, but rather as agents who are actively taking decisions. Cousins and Chouinard (2012) note the need to provide participatory evaluation processes with a methodologic order and clarifi cation given the heterogeneous nature of those approaches identifi ed in the praxis. This article has its roots in a research project5, funded by the Spanish government, that identifi es and analyses the characteristics of youth empowerment, and then proposes socio-educational strategies of intervention with the young people; the project has noted a lack of rigorous research into the implementation of PAR (Ozer, 2017) and PE processes were (DeLuca, Poth, & Searle, 2009). This was also the case with other participatory strategies. There is thus a clear lack of precision to the conceptual, technical and methodological questions of these participatory approaches. Furthermore, there are discrepancies between the discursive framework –that which is verbalized as positive in the political agenda and there is a desire for it to be put into practice-, and the normative framework -the indications, guidelines, and technical elements necessary to develop participatory approaches in the intervention-. This discrepancy can be summarized in the following two questions: “Is the aim really to foment the involvement of young people in social action in their communities?” and, were this the case, “What steps and phases need to be developed?” This article starts from the premise that there is real political will to promote the involvement of young people in social action and community life. To support this, we aim to shine light on the second question, focusing on the analysis of PAR and PE with young people, through three research questions: – What agents can be involved in a PAR and PE? What are their main roles? – What are the functions of these agents in a PAR and PE process? – What phases can a PAR and PE process be organized into? 5 For the past few years a team of researchers from the Universities of Girona, Barcelona, Barcelona Autónoma, Pompeu Fabra, and Madrid Autónoma have been developing the HEBE project, focused on youth empowerment. It is a research project funded by the Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad de España (Ref.: EDU2017-83249-R). Some of the results of this research: Soler, P., Trilla, J., Jiménez, M. y Úcar, X. (2017); Úcar, X., Planas, A., Novella, A., & Rodrigo-Moriche, P. (2017), are included in the bibliography to this article. 31 REVISTA DE CERCETARE SI INTERVENTIE SOCIALA - VOLUMUL 75/2021 Conceptual Approach Participatory-Action Research (PAR) Fals-Borda and Anisur-Rahman (1991) understand PAR as an experimental methodology that combines three logics: a) a research approach, b) an action in the educational context, and c) a socio-political action, where people take positions and make demands. Two main aims are pursued: to allow oppressed or marginalized people and social groups to become empowered – often through creative methodologies-, expressing the learning acquired through specifi c actions; and at the same time developing socio-political actions. PAR is co-constructed in a cyclical logic of action-refl ection-action, breaking other linear logics in the research, that are characteristic of a positivist paradigm. In our opinion, PAR has a socio-pedagogical purpose with three main components: 1) Capacity building, by which we mean learning acquired during the participatory process. 2) Transformative political action in the development of the social or professional praxis, given that participation means the use of experience to voluntarily break the asymmetrical relations of submission and dependency implicitly present in the subject/object dichotomy (Fals-Borda & Anisur- Rahman, 1991:5). 3) The individual or social group becoming aware, and the start of conscious and deliberate decision making. We directly relate this aspect to the concept of empowerment that takes place in the education, for the purpose of this article, of young people. Authors such as Stocking and Cutforth (2006) highlight three characteristics that distinguish approaches to research based on people from those based on positivist models of social research: a) the need for a collaborative work perspective, b) the validation of multiple sources of knowledge, and c) a research orientation guided by the principles of social justice. Tapella, Rodríguez-Bilella, Sanz, Chavez-Tafur, & Espinosa-Fajardo (2021) argue that PAR is focused on producing knowledge that is explicitly oriented towards the transformation of the reality researched. Kornbluh et al. (2015) note that youth-led PAR falls within the lines of the general approach, but that it is based and focussed on work done with and by the young people. Ozer (2017) sees youth participatory-action research (hereafter, YPAR) as a form of community-based participatory research in which the young people train in order to be able to identify and analyse relevant problems in their lives. This process leads to the development of abilities linked to research, communication, team-work and promotion. Aldana, Richards-Schuster & Checkoway (2016) note that YPAR is a process that involves young people in documenting and critically assessing the social conditions that aff ect their lives. Two of the epistemological sources of YPARs have been popular education, and critical pedagogies. Authors REVISTA DE CERCETARE SI INTERVENTIE SOCIALA - VOLUMUL 75/2021 32 such as Akom, Shah, Nakai, & Cruz (2016), Aldana, Richards-Schuster & Checkoway (2016), Cammarota and Romero (2011), Livingstone, Celemencki, & Calixte (2014) and Wright (2020) refer explicitly to the infl uence of the Brazilian educator Paulo Freire and his concept of “awareness-raising”. Ozer, Abraczinskas, Duarte, Mathur, Ballard, et al. (2020) also examine the idea that the central axis of YPARs is to question who usually owns and creates knowledge in organisations and society in general. We see the YPAR as a methodological socio-educational work strategy with young people, which has a socio-political focus towards social action; it benefi ts from experiences and practices to develop research processes that are focused on the local, fomenting trusting interpersonal relations which provide information that is useful in improving and transforming this very local context. Participatory Evaluation (PE) Four roots can be identifi ed in the approaches of evaluation oriented at Participatory Approaches to Evaluation PAE: a) the civil rights movement in the United States in the 1960s and 70s; b) the popular education movement in Latin American and the Caribbean; c) the scientifi c and professional evolution in evaluation, and d) the theoretical-conceptual construct of empowerment. Evaluations in the United States of the 1960s and 70s questioned the privileges that the evaluators and programme managers had over other groups, such as the participants (Cousins & Chouinard, 2012). Tapella et al. (2021) connect popular education and the works of Freire (1970) as a root of PE in Latin America and the Caribbean. According to these authors, popular education is a privileged tool for excluded groups to become more aware of their situation, and thus organize themselves with the aim of bringing change. In such a framework, PE is seen to be an educational proposal that foments dialogue. Thirdly, Koch (2000) reviewed the history of evaluation models, categorising them in generations, and placing PE within the focuses of the fourth generation, i.e. evaluations resulting from negotiation processes. The fourth and fi nal root of PE is the theoretical-conceptual construct of empowerment. Following the work of Soler, Trilla, Jiménez, & Úcar (2017) we view youth empowerment as “a process that increases the possibilities that a person can decide and act consequently in all those areas that eff ect their life, participate in decision-taking processes, and contribute responsibly to whatever eff ects the group they form part of” (p. 22). The same authors highlight two conditions that are necessary for empowerment to take place: (i) the development of individual abilities, and (ii) a means that permits the acquired abilities to be used. Since the 1990s a number of evaluation approaches have arisen that are oriented towards participation and prioritize certain diff erential elements; however, all share some traits: they are based on the principles of inclusion, dialogue and deliberation between actors (House, 2005); they base their actions on negotiation (Sharkey & Sharples, 2008); they facilitate individual, collective, and organisational learning (DeLuca et al., 2009, Morabito, 2002); and they support the signifi cant 33 REVISTA DE CERCETARE SI INTERVENTIE SOCIALA - VOLUMUL 75/2021 role of non-evaluating participants during the evaluation process (Daigneault & Jacob, 2009). Some of the most cited approaches are6: Practical-Participatory Evaluation (Jacob, Ouvrard, & Belanger, 2011), Transformative-Participatory Evaluation (Suárez-Balcazar, Orellana-Damacela, Portillo, Sharma, & Lanum, 2003), Empowerment Evaluation (Fetterman, 1994), Collaborative Evaluation (Rodríguez-Campos, 2012), Utilization-Focused Evaluation (Bryson, Patton, & Bowman, 2011), Responsive Evaluation (Baur, Amba, & Widdershoven, 2010). According to Cousins and Withmore (1998), and the Daigneault and Jacob’s review (2009), a PE has three main characteristics: 1) The control of the evaluation must be shared by the greatest number of people involved. Decisions regarding the evaluative process – choice of evaluation objects, data collection techniques and tools-, and those arising from the evaluation results go beyond the technical work of professionals acting as evaluators. Opening control of evaluation would imply sharing responsibilities and decentralising the decision-making of those agents involved: professionals of the organisations and project users; agents responsible for supervision and funding, those in Public Administrations who wield political power, among others etc. 3) The need to ensure diversity of agents. Evaluation teams should be representative of all those groups of people who are in any way connected to the matter being evaluated. 4) The need to ensure increased involvement of agents. Participation should not just be limited to specifi c moments, involvement should cover all stages of evaluation, from design to dissemination of results. The scope of participation is associated with decision-making on the evaluation by individuals in all of its phases. Flores (2008), cited in Ozer et al. (2020) notes that when YPAR evaluates a programme or service aimed at young people or a youth organisation, it is often referred to as youth participatory evaluation (hereafter, YPE). We see common features and a relation between YPARs and evaluation practices of participatory programmes. YPAR, as we have discussed, is a methodological approach (Ritterbusch et al., 2020) and is work-oriented (Ozer et al., 2020), PE is seen to be an approach in which people trained in evaluation methods implement evaluation activities alongside others who are not experts in evaluation, thus generating a shared evaluative knowledge (Cousins, 2003). In this context, the YPE is a strategy to foment youth empowerment (Zeldin, Bestul, & Powers, 2012), as well as facilitate their positive development (London, Zimmerman, & Erbstein, 2003). As described by Checkoway and Richards-Schuster (2003), “youth participation in community evaluation research is an approach in which young people are 6 Space limitations mean that just one reference is provided for each ot the approaches. REVISTA DE CERCETARE SI INTERVENTIE SOCIALA - VOLUMUL 75/2021 34 active participants in the stages of knowledge development, including defi ning the problem, gathering the information, and using the results” (p. 22). This article will use the term Participatory Evaluation (PE), developed in an earlier work by one of the authors (Núñez, 2015). The authors understand PE from a socio-pedagogic perspective of the evaluative processes, connected with the main theories of social pedagogy. These intersections between PE and social pedagogy have previously been examined by Chouinard, Milley & Cousins (2014). Methodology Search criteria and the design of analysis indicators are described below. Search criteria The search for and analysis of information was based on the following criteria: 1) Scientifi c articles published in English or Spanish between 2010 and 2021. 2) Three databases were used: 1) Scopus, 2) Web of Science, 3) Dialnet. The fi rst two were used for an international search, while the scope of the third is national. 3) The search covered social science knowledge areas (education, psychology, social work, among others) and the humanities. 4) English search terms were “Youth Participatory Action Research”, “Participatory Evaluation”, “Youth Participatory Evaluation” combined with the Boolean operator “AND”. Spanish terms were “Evaluación Participativa” and “Investigación-Acción Participativa con Jóvenes”, these being the equivalent of the English terms. No combination was possible due to the format of Dialnet. The fi rst stage of analysis was title, summary, and keywords in each article; this ensured their initial suitability. In order to fi lter the article and move onto the second analytical stage, the summary of each article had to include the following information: 1) That it would discuss the results of an empirical research project, and/or elaborate an experience or good practice; both had to involve work with young people. 2) That the empirical research /experience / good practice fell within the parameters of PAR or YPARs. 3) That the empirical research /experience / good practice fell within the parameters of PE or YPEs. The initial search on Scopus and Web of Science produced 174 articles. Once fi ltered, there were 28 references, these have thus been used in this research. The 35 REVISTA DE CERCETARE SI INTERVENTIE SOCIALA - VOLUMUL 75/2021 initial search on Dialnet produced 47 articles on “Participatory Evaluation” and 85 on “Youth Participatory Action Research”, this was reduced to 2 articles after fi ltering, giving a total of 30 articles examined for the purposes of this research. Analytical indicators A battery of analysis indicators was designed to operationalize and systemize the search and bibliographical analysis process. This was applied to the fi nal 30 articles: article title; author/s and year of publication; publishing journal; approach, intervention context, intervention purpose, intervention strategies, agents and place. The information thus compiled and analysed is presented in Table 1, the fi rst result of this research. Results The fi rst result presents the analysis of those experiences that facilitate and promote the participation of the young people in their community. The results are shown in table 1, which summarizes the information analysed in the fi nal 30 articles. Information in table 1 includes the following elements: (1) Article title; (2) Author/s and year of publication; (3) Publishing journal; (4) The approach: the methodological approach or strategy analysed is presented; examples are Participatory Action Research (PAR); Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR); and Youth Participatory Evaluation (YPE); (5) Intervention context: specifying the kind of organisation in which the participatory experience with young people took place; examples are extracurricular activities; community-based organisations; youth organisations; children’s hospitals; (6) Purpose of intervention: specifying the aims of the participatory experience; (7) Intervention strategies: specifying techniques, tools, or artistic media used by young people in collecting and analysing information; (8) Agents: informing of number, age and other relevant characteristics of the young people participating in analysed cases; (9) Place: informing of place, city, or region, whether urban or rural. To protect anonymity, some articles do not state location, or use pseudonyms. REVISTA DE CERCETARE SI INTERVENTIE SOCIALA - VOLUMUL 75/2021 36 37 REVISTA DE CERCETARE SI INTERVENTIE SOCIALA - VOLUMUL 75/2021 REVISTA DE CERCETARE SI INTERVENTIE SOCIALA - VOLUMUL 75/2021 38 39 REVISTA DE CERCETARE SI INTERVENTIE SOCIALA - VOLUMUL 75/2021 REVISTA DE CERCETARE SI INTERVENTIE SOCIALA - VOLUMUL 75/2021 40 41 REVISTA DE CERCETARE SI INTERVENTIE SOCIALA - VOLUMUL 75/2021 REVISTA DE CERCETARE SI INTERVENTIE SOCIALA - VOLUMUL 75/2021 42 43 REVISTA DE CERCETARE SI INTERVENTIE SOCIALA - VOLUMUL 75/2021 REVISTA DE CERCETARE SI INTERVENTIE SOCIALA - VOLUMUL 75/2021 44 The second result is the design of the check-list on YPAR and YPE strategies. The experiences of the fi nal 30 articles are analysed, this was done through a deductive information analysis information procedure, using the battery of analysis indicators presented above. Similarities were observed in: a) the intervening agents and their main roles, b) the functions the identifi ed agents fulfi lled, and c) the stages in which YPAR and YPEs are sequenced. These three characteristics form the check-list, which is presented below. YPAR process roles, functions agents and stages Table 2 shows information regarding the YPAR process. Table 2. YPAR process roles, functions, agents and phases Youth Par cipatory Ac on Research (YPAR) Roles of agents involved Researchers Process assessors Adults collaborators Process facilitators. Young people Process creators/ par cipants. Func ons of agents involved Know organiza on/ community context. Propose process in organisa on/ community. Train par cipants. Technically assess YPAR. Introduce, present researchers in organisa on/community. Facilitate logis cal support. Aid in iden fying young people in organisa on/ community and suggest they par cipate. Promote refl ec on and expression of young people. Mediate, fi nd balance and representa veness of all young people during research. Aid in iden fying suitable forms of gathering informa on. Aid in iden fying suitable results’ presenta on formats. Provide own opinions and views on subject in ques on. Discuss and agree group opinions. Design own means/ strategies for data collec on. Analyse documenta on. Administer ques onnaires and interviews. Develop pre-standardized crea ve techniques (e.g. Photovoice). Group discussion and analysis of informa on collected. Design own means/ strategies for results’ presenta on. Infl uence improvement/ change in organisa on/ community based on results obtained. 45 REVISTA DE CERCETARE SI INTERVENTIE SOCIALA - VOLUMUL 75/2021 YPE process roles, functions, agents and phases Table 3 shows the information regarding the YPE process. Table 3. YPE process roles, functions, agents and phases Process phases Invite par cipa on Recruit work team Train fi rst par cipants Iden fy (a) problem, (b) situa on, (c) research needs Defi ne roles and responsibili es Compile informa on Analyse informa on Present results Develop ac ons and take decisions that promote change Youth Par cipatory Evalua on (YPE) External researchers- evaluators Process assessors. Process facilitators. Technical personnel Process facilitators. Process a endants. Creators / par cipants in processes. Young people Creators / par cipants in processes. Know organiza on/ community context. Explain PE process in organisa on/ community. Train par cipants. Produce ini al methodological proposal for development of PE. Technical assessment in PE process. Review evaluators’ methodological proposal. Defi ne methodological proposal in context of organisa on/ community. Facilitate logis c support. Support development of PE. Iden fy people in organisa on/ community to invite par cipa on. Form part of the PE work team. Monitor par cipa on of young people. Nego ate and set evalua on aims. Gather informa on through range of sources/strategies. Analyse informa on gathered. Aid young people in design of results’ presenta on. Help young people disseminate results through whole organisa on/community. Form part of the PE work team. Nego ate and set evalua on aims. Gather informa on through range of sources/strategies. Design informa on gathering strategies. Discuss and analyse informa on in groups. Design results’ presenta on strategies. Present evalua on results. Disseminate evalua on results through whole organisa on/ community. REVISTA DE CERCETARE SI INTERVENTIE SOCIALA - VOLUMUL 75/2021 46 Discussion Three main agent roles, with similar characteristics, were identifi ed in both approaches: 1) personnel external to the community and organisations; 2) adults linked to the organisations, and 3) young people linked to the organisations and community. The fi rst are generally university researchers or external evaluators – in the case of the YPE-, their main role is to assess processes. They have a technical interest in participatory research and evaluation approaches and work to three ends: a) to increase scientifi c knowledge, b) to improve the processes of NGOs and community organisations, and c) to further the agency and relevance of young people. The second group refers to adult collaborators. These can be professionals – technicians in community organisations or schools- and adult volunteers –such as community leaders and other volunteers-. Their main role is that of facilitators of the YPAR, and facilitators and participants of the YPE. They monitor the young people during the development of participatory processes, introduce external personnel into the community/organisation, and off er logistical support at the start. They also act as mediators between the young people, and participate directly in the processes, this is particularly so in participatory evaluation. The third group is formed of the young people involved, who are normally linked to a formal education centre, youth association, or social organisation that off ers services to the community. Their main role is of central players in YPAR and YPEs: to negotiate, gather and analyse information, implement improvements and change, and have an infl uence on organisations and in their communities. Regarding the functions of external personnel, described in tables 2 and 3, three functions should be highlighted that are present in both approaches a) knowledge of the context of the community or organisation; b) technical assessment of processes, and c) the training of participants. When discussing initial training, of the 30 experiences analysed, 11 included prior training as an intervention strategy as part of the participatory process; of these, 4 were linked to YPE, and 7 to YPAR. The analysis permits a division of training into cross-disciplinary, and specifi c. Cross-disciplinary training is based on off ering participants contents Invite par cipa on Recruit work team Train fi rst par cipants Nego ate (a) evalua on aims, (b) condi ons of evalua ons, (c) mescale Compile informa on Analyse informa on Present results Disseminate of results through whole organisa on/community, etc. 47 REVISTA DE CERCETARE SI INTERVENTIE SOCIALA - VOLUMUL 75/2021 such as mixed research methods; data collection techniques; ethical research protocols; typology of youth participation; and empowerment; leadership; social abilities; and promotion of personal autonomy, among others. Specifi c training covers the syllabus of the YPAR or YPE. Examples include documentary analysis; violence against young people and child-protection protocols (Ritterbusch et al. 2020); the promotion of physical and mental health (Lindquist-Grantz and Abraczinskas, 2020); and fi ne arts (Asakura, Lundy, Black, & Tierney, 2020). The external personnel – researchers / evaluators- are responsible for overall training development. Regarding the functions of those adults who collaborate in YPAR and YPEs, we have observed the necessary combination of hard and soft competences (Cousins & Chouinard, 2012) as facilitators, monitors and creators of these processes. Actions linked to logistic support, the technical process of collection and analysis of information and presentation of results are strongly tied to hard research and evaluation competences; while the construction of spaces of trust and security between the young people, the negotiation of initiatives, promotion of refl ection, mediation, among others, are related to the competences, social skills, and ability to relate of the adults who collaborate with the young people. Suarez-Balcazar (2020) states that the adults are facilitators who should foment the conditions and spaces – whether physical or virtual – where the young people can develop their agency and a positive social identity. The functions of the young people were to become involved in the research and evaluation process through decision-taking with the aid of the adult technicians or volunteers. The aim is for the young people to improve their own skills, while bringing improvements to the organisation / community, and infl uence the public agenda through the PAR and PEs of the programmes in which they participate. Lastly, and regarding the phases of YPAR and YPE processes, the analysis highlights the young people’s use of creative work methods: 7 experiences have been based on Photovoice, 4 developed audio-visual activities (videos, photography, public showing of videos, among others), and 4 carried out other artistic activities (for example, plays, and performance). The creative methods were used at the information gathering stage, during the analysis of information, and the presentation of results in the community / organisation. We believe that they serve to stimulate the young people’s interest and attention and may be combined with the use of more classical social science techniques and tools, such as interviews, surveys, or discussion groups. Conclusion This article has analyzed the literature on YPAR and YPE approaches to provide information regarding (1) the role of agents involved, (2) the functions they perform, and (3) the sequences to the phases that both approaches follow. We REVISTA DE CERCETARE SI INTERVENTIE SOCIALA - VOLUMUL 75/2021 48 note similarities between both approaches in that there is a continuum between those PAR and PA processes that concern young people. Indeed, recent publications such as Richards-Shuster et al. (2021) have suggested the YPARE strategy: Youth Participatory Action Research and Evaluation. We believe that further research into this is necessary in order to provide detailed information regarding the methodological design of these approaches similarities, particularities, aims-, as well as to analyse the learning acquired by the young people. We also feel that their usefulness should be explored from the perspective of social pedagogy and how they foment individual abilities through training. References Akom, A., Shah, A., Nakai, A., & Cruz, T. (2016). Youth participatory action research (YPAR) 2.0: how technological innovation and digital organizing sparked a food revolution in East Oakland. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 29(10), 1287-1307. DOI: 10.1080/09518398.2016.1201609. Aldana, A., Richards-Schuster, K., & Checkoway, B. (2016). Dialogic pedagogy for youth participatory action research: Facilitation of an intergroup empowerment program. Social work with groups, 39 (4), 339-358. DOI: 10.1080/01609513.2015.1076370. Asakura, K., Lundy, J., Black, D., & Tierney, C. (2020). Art as a transformative practice: A participatory action research project with trans youth. Qualitative Social Work, 19 (5-6), 1061-1077. DOI: 10.1177/1473325019881226. Ashton, C., Arnold, M. E., & Wells, E. E. (2010). Participatory evaluation with youth leads to community action project. Journal of Extension, 48 (3), 1-4. Baur, V.E., Abma, T. A., & Widdershoven, G. A. M. (2010). Participation of marginalized groups in evaluation: mission impossible? Evaluation and Program Planning, 33 (3), 238 – 245. DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2009.09.002. Bertrand, M., Salinas, S.M., Demps, D., Rentería, R., & Sybil Durand, E. (2020). “It’s everybody’s job”: Youth and adult constructions of responsibility to take action for school change through PAR. The Urban Review, 52, 392-414. DOI: 10.1007/ s11256-019-00537-y. Boadu, E. S., & Ile, I. (2019). Between power and perception: Understanding youth perspectives in participatory and evaluation (PM&E) in Ghana. Evaluation and Program Planning, 77, article 101683. DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2019.101683. Bryson, J. M., Patton, M. Q., & Bowman, R. A. (2011). Working with evaluation stakeholders: A rationale, step-wise approach and toolkit. Evaluation and Program Planning, 34 (1), 1-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2010.07.001. Cammarota, J. (2011). A sociohistorical perspective for participatory action research and youth ethnography in social justice education. In Levinson, B. A. U, & Pollock, M. Companion to the Anthropolgy of Education, Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 517-529. DOI: 10.1002/9781444396713.ch30. Cammarota, J., & Fine, M. (2010). Revolutionizing education: Youth participatory action research in motion. New York: Routledge. 49 REVISTA DE CERCETARE SI INTERVENTIE SOCIALA - VOLUMUL 75/2021 Cammarota, J., & Romero, A. (2011). Participatory action research for high school students: transforming policy, practice, and the personal with social justice education. Educational Policy, 25(3), 488-506. DOI: 10.1177%2F0895904810361722. Cohen, A. K., Ozer, E. J., Abraczinskas, M., Voight, A., Kirshner, B., & Devinney, M. (2020). Opportunities for youth participatory action research to inform school district decisions. Evidence & Policy, 16 (2), 317-329. DOI: 10.1332/174426419 X15649816542957. Coleman, B. R. (2020). Managing the disconnect: A critical case study of neoliberalism in youth development practice. Journal of Community Psychology, 1-20. DOI: 10.1002/jcop.22350. Cousins, J. B. (2003). Utilization eff ects of participatory evaluation. In T. Kellaghan, D. L. Stuffl ebeam & L. A. Wingate (Eds.), International handbook of educational evaluation, Boston, MA: Klewer, pp. 245-265. Cousins, J.B., & Chouinard, J.A. (2012). Participatory evaluation up close. An integration of Research-Based Knowledge. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing. Cousins, J. B. & Withmore, E. (1998). Framing participatory evaluation. In Withmore, E. (Ed.), Understanding and practicing participatory evaluation. New Directions in Evaluation, San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 3-23. DOI: 10.1002/ev.1114. Checkoway, B.N. & Richards-Schuster, (2003). Youth participation in community evaluation research. American Journal of Evaluation, 24 (1), 21-33. Chouinard, J. A., Milley, P., & Cousins, J. B. (2014). Intersections between participatory evaluation and social pedagogy. Pedagogia Social. Revista Interuniversitaria, 24, 137-162. DOI: 10.7179/PSRI_2014.24.06. Daigneault, P-M, & Jacob, S. (2009). Toward accurate measurement of participation: Rethinking the conceptualization and operationalization of participatory evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 13(3), 371 - 386. DOI: 10.1177/1098214009340580. DeLuca, C., Poth, Ch., & Searle, M. (2009). Evaluation for learning: A cross-case analysis of evaluator strategies. Studies in educational evaluation, 35, 121-129. DOI: 10.1016/j.stueduc.2009.12.005. Exner-Cortens, D., Sitter, K. C., Van Bavel, M., & Wright, A. (2021). Photo-Based Evaluatiuon: A method for participatory evaluation with adolescents. American Journal of Evaluation, 1-16. DOI: 10.1177/1098214020927785. Fals-Borda, O., & Anisur-Rahman, M. (1991). Action and Knowledge: Breaking the monopoly with participatory action research. New York, NY: Apex Press. Fetterman, D. M. (1994). Empowerment evaluation. Evaluation Practice, 15, 1-15. DOI: 10.1177/109821409401500101. Fisher-Borne, M., & Brown, A. (2018). A case study using photovoice to explore racial and social identity among young black men: Implications for social work research and practice. Journal of Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 27(2), 157- 175. DOI: 10.1080/15313204.2016.1151307. Flores, K. S. (2008). Youth participatory evaluation: Strategies for engaging young people, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed, New York: Continuum Press. Gardner, R., Snyder, W., & Zuguy, A. (2019). Amplifying youth voice and cultivating leadership through participatory action research. Education policy analysis archives, 27 (54), 1-26. REVISTA DE CERCETARE SI INTERVENTIE SOCIALA - VOLUMUL 75/2021 50 Gore, T. & Wells, P. (2009). Governance and evaluation: The case of EU regional policy horizontal priorities. Evaluation and Program Planning, 32(2), 158-167. DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2008.10.007. Guba, E.G. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1989). Fourth Generation Evaluation, London: SAGE Publications. Halsall, T., Daley, M., Hawke, L., & Henderson, J. (2021). Exploring peer support services for youth experiencing multiple health and social challenges in Canada: A Hybrid Realist-Participatory Evaluation model. International Yournal of Qualitative Methods, 20, 1-13. DOI: 10.1177/1609406921995680. Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. (1998). Strategies of engagement: lessons from the critical examination of collaboration and confl ict in an interorganizational domain. Organization Science, 9(2), 217-230. DOI: 10.1287/orsc.9.2.217. Herrera, M. y Castón, P. (2003). Las políticas sociales en las sociedades complejas, Madrid: Ariel. House, E. R. (2005). Promosing practice: The many forms of democratic evaluation, The Evaluation Exchange (The Harvard Family Research Projects’s evaluation periodical, Cambridge, MA) 11 (3) 7. Jacob, S., Ouvrad, L., & Belanger, J. F. (2011). Participatory evaluation and process use within a social aid organization for at-risk families and youth. Evaluation and Program Planning, 34, 113-123. DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2010.08.002. Koch, T. (2000). ‘Having a say’: negotiation in fourth-generation evaluation. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 31(1), 117-125. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2000.01253.x. Kornbluh, M., Ozer, E. J., Allen, C. D., & Kirshner, B. (2015). Youth participatory action research as an approach to sociopolitical development and the new academic standards: consideration for educators. Urban Review, 47, 868-892. DOI: 10.1007/ s11256-015-0337-6. Laperrière, H., Potvin, L. and Zúñiga, R. (2012). A socio-political framework for evaluability assessment of participatory evaluations of partnerships: Making sense of the power diff erentials in programs that involve the state and civil society. Evaluation, 18(2) 246-259. DOI: 10.1177/1356389012442445. Lindquist-Grantz, R., & Abraczinskas, M. (2020). Using youth participatory action research as a health intervention in community settings. Health Promotion Practice, 21(4), 573-581. DOI: 10.1177/1524839918818831. Livingstone, A. M., Celemencki, J., & Calixte, M. (2014). Youth participatory action research and school improvement: The missing voices of black youth in Montreal. Canadian Journal of Education, 37(1), 283-308. London, J. K., Zimmerman, K., & Erbstein, N. (2003). Youth-led research and evaluation: Tools for youth, organizational, and community development. New Directions for Evaluation, 98, 33-45. Malcolm, J., Brennan, M., Webster, N., & Dolan, P. (2020). Beyond participation: A case study of youth as researchers ans community development in North Philadelphia. Community Development, 51(5), 703-720. DOI: 10.1080/15575330.2020.1826547. Mathiyazhagan, S. (2020). Participatory youth-led community development: A child- centered visual SWOT analysis in India. Children and Youth Services Review, 113, 104963. DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.104963. 51 REVISTA DE CERCETARE SI INTERVENTIE SOCIALA - VOLUMUL 75/2021 Morabito, S. M. (2002). Evaluator roles and strategies for expanding evaluation process infl uence. American Journal of Evaluation, 23, 321-330. DOI: 10.1177/109821400202300307. Núñez, H. (2015). Evaluación participativa en la acción comunitaria. Aproximaciones teórica y metodológica, Madrid: Editorial Popular. Ozer E. J. (2017). Youth-led participatory action research: Overview and potential for enhancing adolescent development. Child Development Perspectives, 11(3), 173– 177. DOI: 10.1111/cdep.12228. Ozer, E. J., Abraczinskas, M., Duarte, C., Mathur, R., Ballard, P. J., Gibbs, L., Olivas, E. T., Bew, M. J., & Afi fi , R. (2020). Youth participatory approaches and health equity: conceptaulization and integrative review. American Journal of Community Psychology, 66, 267-278. DOI: 10.1002/ajcp.12451. Papa, E. L. (2019). Revaling the resistant capital of Cambodian youth: Using photovoice as a tool for advocacy and policy change. Journal of Southeast Asian American Education and Advancement, 14(1), 1-24. DOI:10.7771/2153-8999.1182. Papineau, D. & Kiely, M. C. (1996). Participatory evaluation in a community organization: fostering stakeholder empowerment and utilization. Evaluation and Program Planning, 19(1) 79-93. DOI: 10.1016/0149-7189(95)00041-0. Putnam, R. D. (1993). What makes democracy work? National Civic Review, 82(2), 101- 107. DOI: 10.1002/ncr.4100820204. Richards-Schuster, K., Wernick, L. J., Henderson, M., Bakko, M., Rodríguez, M. A., & Moore, E. (2021). Engaging youth voices to addres racial disproportionality in schools: Exploring the practice and potencial of youth participatory research in an urban district. Children and Youth Services Review, 122, 1-9. DOI: 10.1016/j. childyouth.2020.105715. Ritterbusch, A. M., Boothby, N., Mugumya, F., Wanican, J., Bangirana, C., Nyende, N., Ampumuza, D., Apota, J., Mbabazi, C., Nabukenya, C., Kayongo, A., Ssembatya, F., & Meyer, S. R. (2020). Pushing the limits of child participation in research: Refl ections from a youth-driven participatory action research (YPAR) initiative in Uganda. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 19, 1-12. DOI: 10.1177/1609406920958962. Robinson, D. B., Robinson, I. M., Currie, V., & Hall, N. (2019). The Syrian Canadian Sports Club: A community-based participatory action research project with/for syrian youth refugees. Social Sciences, 8, 1-15. DOI: 10.3390/socsci8060163. Rodríguez-Campos, L. (2012). Advances in collaborative evaluation. Evaluation and Program Planning, 35 (4), 523-528. DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2011.12.006 Rodriguez, R., Macias, R.L., Perez-Garcia, R., Landeros, G., & Martinez, A. (2018). Action research at the intersection of structural and family violence in an immigrant latino community: a youth-led study. Journal of Family Violence, 33, 587-596. DOI: 10.1007/s10896-018-9990-3. Sands, C. H., Bankert, S. C., Rataj, S., Maitin, M., & Sostre, J. (2014). “Call for Partnerships:” an innovative strategy to establish grassroots partnerships to transform the food and fi tness environments. Community Development, 45(3), 263-278. Soler, P., Trilla, J., Jiménez, M., & Úcar, X. (2017). The construction of a pedagogical model of youth empowerment: spaces, moments and processes. Pedagogía Social. Revista Interuniversitaria, 30, 19-34. DOI: 10.7179/PSRI_2017.30.02. REVISTA DE CERCETARE SI INTERVENTIE SOCIALA - VOLUMUL 75/2021 52 Shadowen, N. L., Guerra, N. G., Beveridge, R., & McCoy, E. K. (2020). A resilient research approach: Using community-based participatory action research in a rural area of India. Journal of Community Psychology, 48, 2491-2503. DOI: 10.1002/jcop.22429. Suarez-Balcazar, Y. (2020). Meaningful engagement in research: Community residents as co-creators of knowledge. American journal of Community Psychology, 65, 261- 271. DOI: 10.1002/ajcp.12414. Suarez-Balcazar, Y., Orellana-Damacela, L., Portillo, N., Sharma, A. & Lanum, M. (2003). Implementing an Outcomes Model in the Participatory Evaluation of Community Initiatives. Journal of Prevention & Intervention in the Community, 26(2), 5-20. DOI: 10.1300/J005v26n02_02. Shadowen, N.L., Guerra, N.G., Beveridge, R., & McCoy, E. K. (2020). A resilient research approach: Using community-based participatory action research in a rural area of India. Journal of Community Psychology, 48, 2491-2503. DOI: 10.1002/jcop.22429. Sharkey, S. & Sharples, A. (2008). From the beginning: Negotiation in community evaluation. Evaluation, 14(3), 363-380. DOI: 10.1177/1356389008090860. Stocking, V. B. & Cutforth, N. (2006). Managing the challenges of teaching community based research courses: Insights from two instructors. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 13(1), 56-65. Tapella, E., Rodríguez-Bilella, P., Sanz, J. C., Chavez-Tafur, J., & Espinosa-Fajardo, J. (2021). Siembra y cosecha: Manual de evaluación participativa Bonn: Instituto Alemán de Evaluación de la Cooperación para el Desarrollo (Deval). Trott, C. D. (2019) Reshaping our world: Collaborating with children for community-based climate change action. Action Research, 17(1), 42-62. DOI: 10.1177/1476750319829209. Úcar, X., Llena, A., Pescador, R., & Jiménez, J. (2018). Evaluación participativa de los “procesos de evaluación del acompañamiento socioeducativo de jóvenes en medio abierto. Revista de Educación Social, 27, 1-23. Úcar, X., Planas, A., Novella, A., & Rodrigo-Moriche, P. (2017). Participatory evaluation of youth empowerment in youth groups. Cases analysis. Pedagogía Social. Revista Interuniversitaria, 30, 67-80. DOI: 10.7179/PSRI_2017.30.05. Workman, L. M., & Browder, J. S. (2020). The use of ripple eff ect mapping to understand successes of the SC pregnancy assistance fund: A participatory evaluation approach. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 24(2), 224-231. DOI: 10.1007/s10995-020- 02902-w. Warren, C. A., & Marciano, J. E. (2018). Activating student voice through Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR): policy-making that strengthens urban education reform. International Jourmal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 31(8), 684-707. DOI: 10.1080/09518398.2018.1478154. Wright, D. E. (2020). Imagining a more just world: critical arts pedagogy and youth participatory action research. International Jourmal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 33(1), 32-49. DOI: 10.1080/09518398.2019.1678784. Zeldin, S., Bestul, L., & Powers, J. (2012). Youth adult partnership in evaluation (Y-AP/E): A resource guide for translating research into practice. ACT for Youth Center of Excellence, Cornell University. © 2021. This work is licensed under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.