Abstract
AbstractYouth voice is acknowledged as being critical for any investigation into children and young people’s (CYP) lived experiences but is particularly important for the field of cyberbullying (Cb), where technology and social media have transformed traditional bullying into behaviors which operate across both online and offline settings. The significant social and economic costs of both cyber and traditional bullying (C/B) to CYP’s health, wellbeing, academic achievement, relationships, and quality of life are well documented quantitatively, however qualitative studies, which capture the voice of the individual, and lived reality of the social contexts and experiences, remain limited. This paper presents one of the first qualitative meta-studies in this research area and models the feasibility and potentiality of this methodological approach to: (1) facilitate the synthesis of discrete qualitative studies concerning youth voice and co-participatory research practices, and (2) subsequently inform and extend methodological knowledge in the cyber/bullying (C/B) and youth wellbeing domains. The convergences/differences, ethical considerations, enablers, challenges, affordances, and limitations of five of the authors’ studies concerned with youth voice and co-participatory research methodologies are analyzed and synthesized to create new collective meanings and understandings. In doing so, this paper demonstrates a transdisciplinary and transformative approach: where new knowledge and unity of understanding is created which extends beyond each unique study and the discipline and domain in which it is situated. Findings from the meta-study indicate that providing youth with opportunities to shape research at all stages can empower them to design authentic preventative approaches directly relevant to their context and experiences, whilst simultaneously developing critical research and inquiry skills. This paper highlights the imperative for researchers to empower CYP as co-researchers and embrace them as change partners, simultaneously acknowledging the challenges this presents, including the shift in power of the researcher’s role which occurs. It also provides a warrant for employing meta-study approaches to discrete qualitative studies to inform and extend broader research and methodological agendas.
Funder
University of South Australia
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Social Sciences (miscellaneous),Developmental and Educational Psychology,Social Psychology
Reference94 articles.
1. Banyard, V. L., & Miller, K. E. (1998). The powerful potential of qualitative research for community psychology. American Journal of Community Psychology., 1998(26), 485–505.
2. Barinaga, E., & Parker, P. S. (2013). Community-engaged scholarship: Creating participative spaces for transformative politics. Tamara: Journal for Critical Organization Inquiry, 11(4), 5–11.
3. Barker, C., & Pistrang, N. (2005). Quality criteria under methodological pluralism: Implications for conducting and evaluating research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 35(3–4), 201–212.
4. Barter, C., & Renold, E. (2000). I wanna tell you a story: Exploring the application of vignettes in qualitative research with children and young people. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 3(4), 307–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570050178594
5. Booth, A. (2001). Cochrane or cock-eyed? How should we conduct systematic reviews of qualitative research? Paper presented at the qualitative evidence-based practice conference, taking a critical stance. Coventry University, May 14–16 2001. http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00001724.htm
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献