These case studies illustrate that youth-engaged research is not just possible; it is incredibly rewarding, and with the right support systems, those new to this way of working can meaningfully include young people as research collaborators. They describe how two research teams realized the power of collaborating with young people at strategic points in the research process and came away with insights that would not have emerged without the critical input of their youth collaborators.
Through trial and error, the Hopelab team discovered that its expectations for engagement in online focus groups did not always align with youth norms and preferences. For instance, some young people kept their cameras off during Zoom conversations due to technical constraints or differing comfort levels. Others experienced technological challenges by joining from phones instead of laptops, which impacted participation. There was also significant variation in engagement style — some spoke freely, while others were more hesitant or preferred communicating in writing. These initial observations motivated adjustments going forward. For example, during focus group conversations, facilitators actively encouraged different ways of communicating, such as speaking, writing in the chat, reacting with emojis, or adding a “+1” via chat when someone shared a resonant comment. Providing multiple pathways for participation helped cultivate group rapport and allowed for deeper probing into sensitive topics like LGBTQ+ identity.
In retrospect, although they were not required to do so, the Hopelab team wished that they had amended their IRB to include the co-interpretation focus groups. This approval would have allowed them to share direct quotes in the published report and convey young people’s perspectives more effectively and powerfully. In the future, the research team plans to revise their processes such that quotes from co-interpretation sessions are IRB-approved as research data.
From the beginning, Hopelab’s priority was to carry out a youth engagement effort that impacted its research and served as a positive and meaningful experience for the young people involved. Towards this end, Hopelab collaborated with Dr. Suleiman to evaluate the experience of the youth collaborators. The evaluation, which included six in-depth interviews, revealed the collaboration’s highly valued aspects and suggestions for future directions. For example, the youth interviewees emphasized how discussing the survey content motivated them to reflect on their social media use and mental health. They valued the Hopelab team’s responsiveness to their feedback and felt their voices made a difference in the final survey draft. They also stressed the importance of regularly updating the survey going forward to reflect the rapidly evolving nature of the topic. These insights underscored the mutual benefits of meaningful youth engagement and provided actionable guidance for future research.
CDT approached their youth-engaged work with an overarching interest in supporting young people’s digital agency and well-being yet allowed their research agenda to evolve naturally toward this goal. They paused at each critical decision point, engaged with young people as possible, and let youth knowledge and input inform their decision-making. By remaining flexible yet closely in touch with their core aim, CDT was able to embrace real-time feedback, pivot, and create space to explore entirely new lines of work. This approach led to research on “grind culture,” and it also inspired new resources designed with sensitivity to and alignment with young people’s lived experiences.
Young people have insider knowledge that can play a crucial role in boosting the design, refinement, and validity of study plans. For CDT, getting teen input informed the direction of their research in a broad sense, but also more granular decisions like developing the survey questions. The latter helped ensure that survey questions, response options, and definitions were clear and reflective of young people’s lived experiences; cognitive interviews with teens also helped the team lean into the wisdom of “measure twice, cut down on error” in survey research (Gehlbach & Brinkworth, 2011). Youth input informed adjustments that facilitated more relevance and necessary nuance, such as adding new response options and examples clarifying survey items. Involving youth in the co-interpretation of survey findings
on the other side of data collection once again helped re-introduce critical nuance that the researchers included alongside the survey data in their final research report.
CDT’s youth engagement strategy highlighted the power of listening to and honoring teens’ experiences and perspectives with curiosity, respect, and humility. By collaborating with teens in a sustained and meaningful way, CDT also developed a rapport with teens, which contributed to the quality of insights that surfaced across the different project phases. Ultimately, these relationships helped the team recognize that many adult assumptions about what is most helpful for teens (including CDT’s own!) can miss the mark. Making teens’ experiences more visible helped unlock new directions for research, and working alongside teens facilitated impactful steps forward in creating responsive, timely resources. Teens helped the researchers see that adults frequently approach youth tech use with a “referee” mindset, imposing strict rules and controls, rather than adopting the role of a “coach” who fosters agency, self-awareness, growth, and problem-solving support around “hard plays” and digital dilemmas. This led to additional work streams beyond the current case, like new professional development support for teachers to embrace the pivot from referee to coach. Elevating teens’ perspectives in safe, sustained, and respectful environments allowed CDT to drive their work forward from a youth-informed
perspective.
