Running head: SOCIAL ACTION WITH YOUTH
Social Action with Youth:
Interventions, Evaluation, and Psychopolitical Validity
Julie Morsillo
Isaac Prilleltensky
Key words: psychopolitical validity, youth, social action, civic engagement
Correspondence
should be sent to: Julie Morsillo, Department of
Psychology, St Albans Campus, Victoria University PO Box 14428 Melbourne City
MC 8001,
Abstract
We describe interventions with youth in a school and a community setting. The school intervention took place with a 10th grade class while the community intervention took place with a group of gay and lesbian youth. Using a participatory action research framework, youth devised a series of interventions to promote personal, group, and community wellness. Interventions included drama presentations, designing an aboriginal public garden, children’s activities in a cultural festival for refugees, an underage party and a battle of the bands. We evaluated the interventions using self-reports, videotapes, and ethnographic data. While goals of personal and group wellness were meaningfully met, wellness at the community level was harder to achieve. Introducing a tool for the evaluation of psychopolitical validity, we examined the degree of both epistemic and transformational validity present in the interventions. Our assessment indicates that (a) psychological changes are easier to achieve than political transformations, (b) epistemic validity is easier to accomplish than transformational validity, and (c) changes at the personal and group levels are less formidable than changes at the community level.
Social Action with Youth:
Interventions, Evaluation, and Psychopolitical Validity
Three concepts and three levels of
analysis shape much of community psychology’s concerns: oppression, liberation
and wellness at the personal, group and community levels (Nelson & Prilleltensky, in press;
Psychopolitical Validity
Our research and action is informed by the concept of psychopolitical validity (PPV). This form of validity refers to the extent to which research and action take into account power dynamics in psychological and political domains affecting oppression, liberation and wellness at the personal, group, and community levels (Prilleltensky, 2003a, b; in press). With respect to research, PPV requires that we take into account how power differentials affect the phenomena under study. With respect to action, PPV requires that we challenge power inequality in order to minimize oppression and maximize liberation and wellness. The concept of PPV focuses attention on the central role of power in explaining and altering conditions of oppression, in understanding processes of liberation, and in fostering wellness for individuals, groups, and communities at large.
PPV builds on well-established bodies of knowledge, such as empowerment, oppression, liberation, and wellness (Nelson & Prilleltensky, in press; Watts & Serrano Garcia, 2003). Furthermore, it builds on community psychology’s tradition of multilevel analyses and interventions. The main innovation implicit in PPV is to accentuate the role of power in all these domains and to expect that practitioners and researchers pay attention to it as a matter of urgency. Abundant research demonstrates the “power of power” as an explanatory and potentially transformative construct (Chomsky, 2002; Craig & Craig, 1979; Gaventa & Cornwall, 2001; Prilleltensky, Nelson, & Peirson, 2001)
In this article we explore how group processes with youth may lead to modest advances in PPV. We report work with disadvantaged youth who engaged in civic and social action to enhance their own wellness and the wellness of the community at large. Through empowering group processes young people were able to reflect on their own oppression and take action. Transformational PPV calls for a reduction in power inequality. As such, it is a tall order. Our work did not achieve that goal, but is a baby step in that direction. Community psychologists strive to enact long lasting interventions that take power away from the over-empowered and rechannel it to the dis-empowered (Huygens, 1995, 1997). Few succeed in sustaining interventions that empower oppressed communities and enhance personal and relational wellness at the same time. Speer and colleagues have documented exemplary community work that challenges illegitimate power through relational processes that enhance group and personal wellness at the same time (Speer & Hughey, 1995; Speer, Hughey, Gensheimer, & Adams-Leavitt, 1995). They come to the conclusion that enduring collective action, to challenge oppression or to promote liberation, cannot be sustained in the absence of strong bonds among movement participants. Our interventions build on that lesson.
Far from presenting our interventions
as exemplars of transformational PPV, we use them to explore the challenges
inherent in achieving it. We are interested in learning how youth can contribute
towards the elimination of certain forms of oppression through collaborative
group processes. Although the youth in our interventions experience oppression
and discrimination on a number of counts, our research shows that they can
become active agents of change. As we note below, Wwhile
others
researchers have documented the potential contributions of youth
to the community, few have examined the explicitly political dimensions of
social action with youth. We hope to make a contribution to the literature on
youth civic engagement by concentrating on the work of disadvantaged youth
through the lens of PPV. Thus, we hope to illuminate certain dynamics unique to
youth engagement in oppressed communities and to throw light of PPV at the same
time.
Social Action with Youth
The literature describes primarily two types of social involvement of youth. One type is related to civic engagement. This kind of involvement describes service learning opportunities and volunteering in a range of organizations like hospitals, senior citizens homes, community clubs, and others (DeVitis, Johns, & Simpson, 1998; Kohler, 1982; Youniss et al., 2002; Youniss & Yates, 1999). In our view, this type of contribution is primarily ameliorative, because it does not challenge the societal status quo. The primary focus is to assist people in need or build community. The second type may be called transformational, for it strives to alter the conditions that lead to social problems in the first place. This approach does challenge the status quo and is more explicitly concerned with changing political structures (Ginwright & James, 2002; Headley, 2002; Lewis, 1998; Potts, 2003). Some efforts to involve youth in community work fall somewhere in between these two approaches, emphasizing community building and participatory approaches to youth involvement in community life (Atweh, Kemmis, & Weeks, 1998; Cadell et al, 2001; Finn & Checkoway, 1998; Yates & Youniss, 1999; Watts, Williams, & Jager, 2003).
We identify strongly with the transformational approach, but recognize the challenges inherent in promoting it. First, it is difficult to engage youth in social change because most avenues for youth involvement are ameliorative in nature. Second, social change is not a high priority for adults, let alone youth. Third, social change is arduous and requires long-term commitments that may not be in line with young people’s agendas. These barriers reduce the likelihood that youth will engage in transformational work.
Our project is called SAY, which stands for Social Action with Youth. In our interventions we gave young people choices as to the kind of projects they wanted to work on. A group of gay and lesbian youth engaged in the most political type of social action: a drama production on homophobia. Other groups chose to do more ameliorative work, like recreational activities for youth. This is not to diminish the contributions of the latter, but to be clear that even though our project is called social action with youth, some projects would not qualify, in some people’s minds, for social action but rather for civic engagement.
Research and Intervention Approach
We followed an action research orientation (Atweh, Kemmis, Weeks, 1998; Reason & Bradbury, 2001, Wadsworth, 1997). This approach is in line with the philosophy of PPV. Action research enlists community participants as partners. Interventions are designed in collaboration by researchers and participants and they typically reflect concerns elicited by community members themselves. The very process of identifying issues and devising actions is empowering of participants. Voice is given to the preference of participants, and efforts are made to have them drive the process. There is a transmission of skills from researchers to participants to enable the latter to be, as much as possible, in control of the project.
Previous work has demonstrated the potential of action research with youth. Young people can become active co-researchers on youth-focused research with professionals (Alder & Sandor, 1990; DeVitis, Johns, & Simpson, 1998; Schwab, 1997; Yates & Youniss, 1999). We used in our work an action research approach to impassion students. The first author, who worked with the students in school and community settings, was careful to identify community projects that related to students’ passions. To do that, she spent time identifying issues that students cared deeply about. This process enabled young people to think critically about their own sense of self in relation to local issues, and to engage in actions that would improve their own well being as well as that of the community.
The two projects reported here are parts of a multi-site intervention project involving four different sites. The participatory philosophy of the project is captured in its name: SAY, which stands for social action with youth. This SAY project has been developed in partnership with a local community service agency, Good Shepherd Youth and Family Service (Melbourne). The first two interventions were completed early in 2003. Although they had similar goals, they differed somewhat in focus and point of departure. Next we describe the context, aims, methods, evaluation and outcomes of each intervention.
Intervention I: High School Setting
Context
The first intervention took place with
a grade 10th grade class in a low-income community in the North
Western suburbs of
The first author worked collaboratively with a teacher for the second semester of academic year 2002. The class was an elective course, part of a pilot project called Working Community Program (Department of Education & Training Victoria, 2002). The philosophy of the program is congruent with our own participatory action research orientation. The program aims to link young people with local community agencies to develop skills and a sense of personal and social responsibility in a supportive environment (Department of Education & Training Victoria, 2002).
Participants
The class consisted of 24 students,
with 12 females and 12 males, 15 to 16 years of age, from diverse ethnic
backgrounds: Anglo-Saxon, Indian, Italian, Greek, Macedonian, Maltese, Spanish
and Vietnamese. Students’ backgrounds reflected the ethnic composition of the
community. Objective and Interventions
The main objectives and interventions were related to the development of socio-political awareness, group and community skills. To effect change at various levels of analysis, interventions had specific personal, group, and community aims. The specific objectives and interventions for this project are described in Table 1.
[Insert Table 1 About Here]
Based on common interests, students were invited to form small groups (2 to 8 students) and design a community project. Projects had to be completed, or at least initiated, in less than three months, and they had to involve a community agency or business. The program consisted of three sessions per week, for a total of four hours per week for twelve weeks, plus a full day introductory session and a full day celebratory session at the end of the program. Students and researcher considered the feasibility of various projects. Five groups chose to organize the following activities:
1. An underage party
2. A school battle of the bands
3. A new community theatre company
4. Children’s activities for a refugee cultural festival
5. An aboriginal garden with the help of an Aboriginal Park Ranger
Evaluation
Methods
Two qualitative methods were used to evaluate the outcomes of the various interventions: Self-reported evaluations by the young people themselves and ethnographic observations. Students worked in small groups according to their areas of interest. Throughout the entire process groups engaged in reflective practice, considering the benefits and challenges associated with each step of the work. Students recorded their self-evaluations and small group discussions and shared them with class and the researcher. In addition, some of their discussions were videotaped and used for analyses of the process and outcomes associated with each project.
The second form of evaluation consisted of ethnographic observations conducted by the researcher in the school and the community. The first author spent a great deal of time interacting with community players coming into contact with students. She collaborated with grass roots organizations and lobbied city council to obtain resources for students. She developed a network of collaborators with community workers, local advocates and media outlets that facilitated the projects. The data include the researcher’s observations of transactions in small groups and in the community. This also includes verbal and written observations from the teacher and various community agencies that interacted with students.
The qualitative data was analysed by
reviewing systematically all the reports produced by young people in
conjunction with the ethnographic material. Video footage was also used to
reflect on group processes and youth’s perceptions. The intense immersion of
the first author with all the groups helped in getting a close feeling for what
the young people went through. A quantitative survey was piloted with all the groups
in both interventions but they did not very yyield
reliable comparisons.
Outcomes
Encouraging outcomes were observed at the three levels of intervention. In part, this may be due to the successful completion of most projects. Students felt rewarded by the recognition they obtained from the community at large. Some of the projects were promoted and reported in the local newspaper, adding visibility and credibility to students’ work. Students, researcher, teacher, and community workers report positive outcomes for the youth and the neighbourhood as a whole. We report outcomes that affected individual youth, their group, and the community as a whole.
For individuals Four positive developments took place in the students carrying out the projects. The first encouraging sign was enhanced socio-political awareness. Students planning and executing the various projects realized the influence of power dynamics in their lives. A student commented that during the process he “learned a lot about how the world works.” Another young participant noted that the work “opened my eyes to the needs of our youth,” while a third one observed that the intervention “developed my awareness to community issues and helping out in the community.”
The second positive outcome was enhanced sense of control and social
responsibility. A youngster was proud to declare “I took on adult responsibilities,” while another expressed “sense of satisfaction that you were able to
put something back into the community for once.”
The third noticeable change was hopefulness in young people’s
perceptions about their ability to make a change. Students moved from “What can we do? We are only kids; We don’t
have any connections” to “I can still
contribute to the community, making a small difference which sums up with other
people’s efforts, to make a big difference overall.”
The fourth outcome refers to students’ community participation skills. They attended meetings with community service workers, business people, politicians, and others. In addition, they learned about obtaining permits, bureaucracy, and the inner workings of local government. One student observed that “you get to interact with other people in the community, which is a thing you wouldn’t normally do” while another commented that “meetings with community service workers gave us the independence and presented us with problems that we had to tackle, not just as individuals, but as a group.”
For the Groups The first outcome relates to independence and motivation of groups. Although students felt somewhat overwhelmed at first by the task and the independence they were given, they gradually gained confidence in their ability to see the projects through. The group that organized the underage party went on to organize, independently, a second and bigger one.
Group effectiveness was an important skill developed in the small teams. A student observed that the project “helped me become independent and able to organize with my group an event with hardly any assistance.” Another student was happy to have developed “confidence, communication, organizing and independence.” Reflecting on their initial hesitation, a student commented that now “we can organize and do what we want if we really want it.”
In addition to independence, motivation and group effectiveness, students experienced cohesion and solidarity. Students relished the sense of belonging that evolved over the course of the challenge. “The highlight was the satisfaction we all felt when the night that we had been planning, stressing over and having sleepless nights about became a rip roaring success. It was a real adrenalin rush for all of us.”
For the Community Not only did students benefit from their participation in community activities, the community as a whole benefited as well. The community gained enhanced youth involvement in local affairs. Four out of the five projects came to a successful completion. The aboriginal garden initiative could not be completed due to time constraints. The various projects, organized and carried out by the youth themselves, made a contribution, however small, to the community and its youth.
Intervention II: Community Setting
Context
The second group, Generation Q, is a
social group of gay and lesbian young people. They meet for two hours weekly
for mutual support and friendship with a youth worker from Good Shepherd Youth
& Family Services. Like the previous intervention, this one also took place
in the North Western suburbs of
Participants
This gay and lesbian social group had a total of 16 members and an average attendance of 8 people per week. The group consisted of half lesbian and half gay members. Their educational and employment status varied. Half the intervention group attended late secondary school (8), some attended community college (3), a couple were in casual work, a couple were homeless and unemployed, and one single parent had a baby born during the intervention. The group was primarily of Anglo-Saxon origin, with a Maltese, a Sri-Lankan and an Indigenous Australian.
Objective and
Interventions
The objectives for this group paralleled the aims of the high school intervention (see Table 1). The researcher used similar activities to elicit young people’s passions. It quickly became apparent that this group already had a strong sense of socio-political awareness due to their gender orientation and experiences of discrimination in the community. Youth expressed grave concern about the homophobic attitudes of the local community. Naturally, they targeted their interventions toward homophobia.
The young people appreciated the chance to express their concerns about homophobic attitudes. These oppressive attitudes had affected them personally in profound ways. Their concerns led to a drama production about homophobia that students presented at a teacher’s forum. In addition, they contributed towards a manual on friendly environments in school for same-sex attracted youth.
Evaluation Methods
The two evaluation methods used with the high school group were replicated in this intervention. Members of the group evaluated their work through verbal and written self-reporting and video footage taken at an intensive weekend camp. The first author, who acted as facilitator, took extensive ethnographic notes about the evolution of the program and participants’ interactions with others in the community.
Outcomes
Initially, half the group did not believe that they could make a difference in their community to overcome homophobic attitudes. Yet, every member of the group participated in developing drama scenarios on homophobia. Sceptic members of the group were persuaded by the rest of the team that something could be done about their own discrimination in the community. Their mutual concern about homophobia and drama ignited the group’s passion for action. Mounting dramatic scenarios with audience participation at a teachers’ forum generated positive outcomes.
For individuals Several
teenagers enjoyed the opportunity for self-expression.
“I enjoyed acting and expressing myself,”
observed one participant; while another commented “being a part of the forum for teachers was a great experience to
express my thoughts.” Beyond self-expression, the teamwork also promoted assertiveness. Youth experimented with
telling the community what they really thought about homophobia. Some, for the
first time, asserted their views in public: “I
got to talk about how I felt and it was great.” Two members of the group gave impromptu
speeches at the teachers’ forum and they felt wonderful. They related personal
experiences of homophobia that were highly valued and appreciated by the
teachers in the room. For some, participation in the project went beyond
assertiveness; presenting in front of teachers was nothing short of a liberating experience: “The forum
was the best experience out of all! All these people were totally willing to
listen to our thoughts on how to fix the homophobia problems at schools. I got
to talk about how I felt and it was great!”
For the Group The self-expression and assertiveness reported by youth could not have occurred without acceptance and peer support. “It is good having a place to be free to make friends and have fun and to express ourselves and to be what we want to be; it helps us to deal with gay issues and not to be afraid of being gay.” Another youth observed that, “you don’t feel threatened at all when you are around the group cause you can be yourself and you won’t get discriminated against.” Another participant enjoyed “being able to be ourselves and work together.”
Related to self-expression was the creative group process: “I enjoyed making our own drama ideas groups and working in groups and talking about what we wanted.” This process enabled the group to be creative, enjoyable, and empowering. The accepting atmosphere and the passion for drama ignited imagination, playfulness and fun.
For the Community The community benefited in two ways. Similar to the first intervention, there was enhanced youth involvement in community affairs. In addition, the specific group of teachers attending the drama presentation learned about homophobia in schools from youth who experienced it first hand. Thus, the young people contributed to enhanced community awareness about a particular form of oppression.
Discussion
We wish to address here two main questions: (a) To what extend did the interventions achieve their goals? And (b) To what extent did the interventions achieve PPV? We consider each one in turn.
[Insert Table 2 About Here]
Table 2 summarizes the main outcomes for the two interventions groups. Comparing these outcomes with the objectives set out in table 1 it may be said that the interventions achieved most of their goals. At the personal level young people developed socio-political awareness, sense of control, participatory skills, assertiveness and even experiences of liberation. At the group level, participants gained skills in teamwork and experienced solidarity, acceptance and peer support. The community benefited from enhanced youth involvement in community affairs and from enhanced community awareness regarding issues affecting gay and lesbian youth.
Although there are parallels between the two main intervention groups, as noted in table 2, there are also some differences. The differences stem from the fact that the groups started in different places of socio-political awareness. The group with gay and lesbian youth already had a fair degree of consciousness about oppression and liberation. By virtue of their sexual orientation they had been subjected to discrimination in the community. For this group, the highlight of their experience was the liberating moments associated with telling their truth in front of teachers.
In our view, gains were achieved through positive interactions across a number of factors: personal passions, supportive and creative group processes, and community action. This sequence has already been documented in the empowerment literature: individuals connect with others who experience similar vicissitudes, they take collective action, and the ensuing intervention reinforces both the group and the individual participating in it (Lord & Hutchins, 1993; Kieffer, 1984; Zimmerman, 2000). Both of our groups went through similar processes. Starting with the identification of personal passions and proceeding to work in small groups, projects culminated in community actions that rewarded participants, both individually and as a group.
It is of interest to note the power dynamics operating in both interventions. Power consists of the capacity and opportunity to effect change at the personal, group, or community levels (Prilleltensky, in press). While young people had the inherent capacity to make positive changes for themselves and the community at large, several of them expressed doubt at their own ability to have a positive impact. We think that their hesitation derived not so much from lack of capacity but rather from lack of opportunity. What our interventions demonstrated, at least for our groups, is that lack of opportunities translates into self-doubt. Additionally, we learned that exposure to community action, in a supportive environment, can lead to feelings of effectiveness and satisfaction, and also to modest contributions to the community. The relative contrast between fairly substantive personal and group gains and rather minor community gains can be explained by exploring psychopolitical validity.
Hitherto, the concept of PPV has been
discussed primarily as a theoretical notion. In this paper we translate the
main tenets of PPV into a tool for the evaluation of social interventions. PPV
is broken down into epistemic (EPPV) and transformational (TPPV) (Prilleltensky, 2003a, b, in press).
Whereas the former refers to the extent that power is considered in political
and psychological dynamics affecting oppression, liberation, and wellness, the
latter refers to the extent that actual change takes place in these domains as
a result of particular interventions.
[Insert Table 3 About Here]
Table 3 introduces a tool for the evaluation of PPV in social interventions. As may be seen, the left hand side addresses EPPV while the right hand side considers TPPV. An asterisk is used to judge the degree of TPPV and a number symbol to denote EPPV. We, the researchers, made those judgements after the interventions were completed. The ratings presented in table 3 represent our own evaluation of our intervention. It is based on all the data collected and the evaluation outcomes. We use table 3 as a tool for reflection on the PPV of our own intervention. It is a considered assessment but it is not an objective tool.
Some interesting patterns emerged for us. First, the levels of EPPV are generally higher than the levels of TPPV. This may be just a reflection of the fact that thinking is easier than doing. Learning about conflictive situations is easier than changing them. Not an earth shattering revelation on our part. The next observation is that within TPPV, stronger changes were observed in the psychological than in the political domain; once again, not a surprising finding. It is easier to change some perceptions, and even some feelings, than to change political structures. Psychologically speaking, our participants gained sense of control, a measure of assertiveness, acceptance, and self-expression. To what extent did they gain actual political power is, by far, a harder question to answer. This led to our assessment that there were probably more psychological than political impacts.
Still within TPPV, more promising gains were observed at the personal and group levels than at the collective level. We think the youth, individually and as a group, probably gained something from participating in the interventions, but we are not sure that the communities will have changed meaningfully in some sense. Although the various projects affected the community in various ways (teacher awareness, underage parties for youth, new community theatre group), we are just not sure about the durability and sustainability of the efforts. One hopeful sign is that the same group that organized the underage party took it upon themselves to organize, independently, a second and bigger one. We hope that this optimistic sign can prove our pessimistic side wrong. Time will tell.
In comparing EPPV and TPPV, the largest distance between awareness and action is also in the collective domain. As researchers, we are very aware of how the low socio-economic status of the community, its poor reputation in the media, its high levels of crime, and other disheartening statistics, affect the lives of youth in the region. But our acute awareness is hard to translate into effective actions at the collective level. Processes of sustainability would have to be put in place to make the positive effects last, while dissemination and recruitment will have to take place to expand the scope of the programs. As community psychologists, this is our next challenge.
Conclusion
We can draw some lessons for the young people, for the community,
for practitioners, and for researchers. The youth we worked with have the
capacity and interest to make a change, but they don’t always have the
opportunity to channel their energy in that direction. When presented with an
opportunity and a structure, all the youth we worked with took advantage of the
chance to improve an aspect of their lives and their communities. Our youth
fights stereotypes all the time. Living in an ill-reputed part of town
demoralizes our students (Victorian Government, 2000). Living with homophobia
and bigotry disempowers gay and lesbian youth even
further (
To the community, we would like to tell how important projects of
this nature are. The department of education in
Our message to practitioners is that efforts should be made to sustain innovative projects. However promising the interventions described here may be, unless they last and become institutionalised, they risk joining the venerable list of one-off promising projects that never took hold in the community. An equally important message is to try and involve as many community players as possible. As noted in our test of PPV, the collective sphere is the one least affected by our interventions. We need to find imaginative ways to expand the reach beyond the individual and group levels.
Researchers may wish to experiment with the use of PPV in their own
work. We translated here for the first time the basic tenets of PPV into an
evaluation tool. An application of the tool may encourage researchers to
concentrate on the ever crucial yet often neglected role of power in
oppression, liberation, and wellness. The instrument presented in table 3 may
be used to assess either kind of PPV or both at the same time, as we did. When
both are evaluated, interesting comparisons can be made across domains and
levels of analysis. The use of EPPV and TPPV can identify blind spots and lead
us to sounder findings and more effective interventions. This, at least, is our
hope.
Acknowledgements
We could
like to acknowledge the invaluable contribution of the Community Wellness
Project steering committee guiding this SAY project with the two authors,
especially the main players up to date including: the Good
Shepherd Youth and Family Service
management staff (Michael Yore, Marilyn Webster and Kay
O’Connell), and the Victoria
University lecturing staff (Lesley Hoatson, Anne Graham and Heather
Gridley). Also
thanks to Rick Hudson and Jemma Mead for working with
the first author with
the two intervention groups. Special
thanks to David Morawetz for providing funding for the
youth projects through thehis Morawetz
Social Justice Fund.
References
Alder, C., & Sandor, D. (1990). Youth researching youth. Youth Studies, November, 38-42
Atweh, B., Kemmis, S., & Weeks, P. (Eds.). (1998). Action research in practice: Partnership for
social justice in education.
Brimbank City Council.
(2000). Brimbank Youth Action Plan 2001-2003.
Cadell, S., Karabanow, J., & Sanchez, M. (2001). Community, empowerment, and resilience: Paths to wellness. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 20(1), 21-35.
Chomsky, N. (2002). Understanding power.
Craig, J., &
Craig, M. (1979).
Synergic power: Beyond domination, beyond
permissiveness.
DeVitis, J. L., Johns, R. W., & Simpson, D. J.
(Eds.). (1998). To serve and learn: the spirit of community in liberal education.
Department of Education & Training
Finn, J. L., & Checkoway, B. (1998). Young people as competent community builders: A challenge to social work. Social Work, 43(4), 335-345.
Gaventa, J., &
Ginwright, S., & James, T. (2002). From assets to agents of change: Social justice, organizing and youth development. New Directions for Youth Development, 96, 27-46.
Headley, S. (2002).
Young People at the Centre: Participation
and Social Change.
Huygens,
Huygens,
Kieffer, C. (1984). Citizen empowerment: A
developmental perspective. Prevention in
Human Services, 3, 9-35.
Kohler, M. C. (1982). Developing responsible youth
through youth participation. Child
and Youth
Services, 4(3), 5-12.
Lewis, B. A. (1998). The kid's
guide to social action: How to solve the social problems you choose - and turn
creative thinking into positive action.
Lord, J., & Hutchison, P.
(1993). The process of empowerment: Implications for theory and practice. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health,
12(1), 5-22.
Nelson, G., & Prilleltensky,
Ollis, D., Mitchell, A., Watson, J., Hillier, L., &
Walsh, J. (2002). Safety in our schools: strategies for responding to homophobia.
Potts, R. (2003). Emancipatory education versus school based prevention in African American communities. American Journal of Community Psychology, 31, 173-183.
Prilleltensky,
Prilleltensky,
Prilleltensky,
Prilleltensky,
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of action
research: participative inquiry and practice.
Schwab, M. (1997). Sharing power: Participatory public health research with
Social Justice, 24(3), 11-32.
Speer, P., & Hughey, J. (1995). Community organizing: An ecological route to empowerment and power. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 729-748.
Speer, P., Hughey, J., Gensheimer, L., & Adams-Leavitt, W. (1995). Organizing for power: A comparative case study. Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 57-73.
Victorian Government. (2000). Suburbs
in Time.
Yates, M., & Youniss,
J. (Eds.). (1999). Roots of civic identity: international perspectives on community
service and activism in youth.
Youniss, J., Bales, S., Christmas-Best, v., Diversi, M., McLaughlin, M. W., & Silbereisen, R. (2002). Youth civic engagement in the twenty-first century. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 12(1), 121-148.
Youniss, J., & Yates, M. (1999). Youth service and moral-civic identity: A case for everyday morality. Educational Psychology Review, 11(4), 361-376.
Zimmerman, M. A. (2000).
Empowerment theory: Psychological, organizational, and community levels of analysis.
In J. Rappaport & E. Seidman (Eds.). (2000). Handbook of community psychology (pp.
43-63).
Table 1
Objectives and Interventions
|
|
Objectives |
Interventions |
|
For Individuals |
· Develop socio-political awareness · Develop sense of control and participatory competence |
· Activities that linked personal passions to community issues and concerns · Participation in community actions |
|
For Groups |
· Develop participation skills in small group environment · Develop solidarity and group cohesion |
· Video and role plays on teamwork, leadership and communication · Small group project with action plan |
|
For Community |
· Contribute to community awareness of youth issues · Participate in community problem-solving |
· Working with local community on youth issues · Completing small scale project to address community problem |
Table 2
Summary of Outcomes for Intervention Groups
|
|
School Group |
Gay and Lesbian Group |
|
For Individuals |
· Enhanced socio-political awareness · Sense of control and social responsibility · Hopefulness · Community participation skills |
· Self-expression · Assertiveness · Liberating experience |
|
For Groups |
·
· Group effectiveness · Cohesion and solidarity |
· Acceptance and peer support · Creative group process |
|
For Community |
· Enhanced youth involvement |
· Enhanced youth involvement · Enhanced community awareness of gay and lesbian issues |
Table 3
Approximate Levels of Epistemic and Transformational Psychopolitical Validity (PPV) in Interventions
|
Epistemic PPV (#) |
Minimal Great |
Transformational PPV (*) |
||||
|
To what extent was the role of power considered in |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
To what extent were there positive changes in |
|
1. Psychological dynamics affecting target group |
|
|
* |
# |
|
1. Psychological dynamics affecting target group |
|
2. Political dynamics affecting target group |
|
* |
|
# |
|
2. Political dynamics affecting target group |
|
3. Personal dynamics of oppression |
|
* |
|
# |
|
3. Personal levels of oppression |
|
4. Personal dynamics of liberation |
|
|
* |
# |
|
4. Personal processes of liberation |
|
5. Personal dynamics of wellness |
|
* |
|
# |
|
5. Personal wellness |
|
6. Group dynamics of oppression |
|
* |
|
# |
|
6. Group levels of oppression |
|
7. Group dynamics of liberation |
|
|
* |
# |
|
7. Group processes of liberation |
|
8. Group dynamics of wellness |
|
* |
# |
|
|
8. Group wellness |
|
9. Collective dynamics of oppression |
* |
|
|
|
# |
9. Collective levels of oppression |
|
10. Collective dynamics of liberation |
* |
|
|
|
# |
10. Collective processes of liberation |
|
11. Collective dynamics of wellness |
* |
|
|
|
# |
11. Collective wellness |