Episode 18: Facilitator Archetypes: Navigating Institutions as Community Engaged Facilitators

• Read Transcript

  Facilitator Archetypes: Navigating institutions as community engaged facilitators, a conversation with Muna Mohamed, Stuart Poyntz, and Ammarah Syed with the Pedagogies of Community Engagement Collective. Hosted by Sherry Ostapovitch.

  Sherry Ostapovitch: [00:00:13] Welcome to the WhyPAR Podcast, a project of the youth research lab at OISE - the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. My name is Sherry Ostapovitch and this episode of The WhyPAR podcast is the third and last in a special series produced by the Pedagogies of Community Engagement Collective. The PeCEP project was created to explore, generate, and share knowledge about facilitation practices that support community-engaged work across different sectors. In this special series of three podcasts, members of PeCEC reflect on their experiences as community-engaged facilitators, confronting some of the dilemmas and tensions, as well as the opportunities and joys of working with, in, and for communities.  

  Sherry Ostapovitch: [00:00:13] This podcast episode entitled, Facilitator Archetypes: Navigating institutions as community engaged facilitators is a conversation with Muna Mohamed, Stuart Poyntz, and Ammarah Syed. They discuss how facilitators can use the archetypes of the doula, the smuggler and translator to better understand their work with communities and institutions. Learn how facilitators can leverage their power to work towards justice and safety for the communities they are accountable to.

  Muna Mohamed: [00:01:24] My name is Muna and I'm joined here today with Stuart and Ammarah, and we're going to be chatting a little bit about how, as facilitators, we occupy spaces within institutions and how that presents some really unique challenges for us. And so before we begin, I thought it would be great to just introduce ourselves and talk about who we are and how we've landed in this work. So my name is Muna Mohamed. My pronouns are she/her. I am a community facilitator with roots in social justice and social movement facilitation, specifically around state sanctioned violence and its impacts on Black communities in Ottawa. And I'm also a ceramic artist, and I'll pass it to Ammarah.

  Ammarah Syed: [00:02:05] All right. Thank you, Muna. Yeah. So my name is Ammarah. My background is in harm reduction, community work, uh, grassroots organizing and arts-based wellness. Uh, I facilitate and create workshops around arts-based wellness as radical self-care.

  Stuart Poyntz: [00:02:22] Thanks, Ammarah. It's great to be here with you all. My name is Stuart Poyntz, and I wear a number of hats. I am the director of a community-engaged research initiative at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver. I spent a long time working with young people, mostly in art organizations and art centers in cities across Canada, um, other places around the world, and very interested in how facilitators help to bring institutions and communities into relationships with each other. Thanks.

  Muna Mohamed: [00:02:55] Awesome. So we've been exploring together just this idea and this relationship that facilitators have with institutional spaces. And these relationships vary depending on the facilitator and the kind of role they occupy. So sometimes, as facilitators, as people that are hosting um, sessions, workshops, as people that are being containers for a group conversation or for getting to a very specific purpose, we either are sometimes parachuting into these institutions to host something or to hold some kind of space, or we're really deeply embedded in them. And we come from a number of different institutions. We come from, at least in this research project, we come from academic institutions, community-based contexts, really client support, harm reduction based contexts, education and adult education and community contexts. So it's really vast. And what's really been a key point, or that's resonated for many of us in this work, is that there are so many possibilities and limitations that exist in navigating institutional spaces. And often as facilitators, we're balancing this tension that exists between community and institutional needs. And then, of course, there's financial constraints and dynamics of facilitation. So as facilitators, we're often navigating our roles in the kind of work that we take up and that creates implications in our relationship between community and the institutions that fund us and resource what we do. And then also, we carry this role in helping communities manage those financial constraints and resourcing the communities that we work with. I wanted to ask Ammarah, as we think about these institutions and the dynamics that we hold with them, what are some challenges that arise? What are some challenges that exist within this relationship that a facilitator holds with institutions?

  Ammarah Syed: [00:04:46] So when we talk about institutional dynamics, financial concerns are a huge issue that our communities deal with. We often come across a lot of tension between institutions and communities, due to very little leeway between the rigid structures and policies that institutions mandate for the funds being allocated, and the unforgiving nature of any discourse from this status quo, which is very rooted in colonial structures and capitalist systems that we are essentially trying to push against. There's also irresolvable tensions that become created in navigating these relationships, and facilitators are often having to deal with the crux of this because they are playing different roles, navigating between the institutions and the communities. And so as such, they take on a lot of different kinds of labour, and the labour that people have named seem to have common archetypes.

  Muna Mohamed: [00:05:58] Yeah, Stuart, did you want to share a little bit about how we got to this concept of archetypes? When we were thinking about the roles that folks occupy in institutions?

  Stuart Poyntz: [00:06:08] Yeah, I think that many folks who are listening to the podcast will recognize that facilitators face a whole number of different challenges. Being the in-between figures between institutions and communities. And so what we wanted to try to do in this conversation was set up archetypes that capture some of the work that facilitators do, the really specific and unique work that facilitators do, the power that they have in their hands when they do this work, how that helps and works at negotiating relationships between institutions and communities. And our idea about archetypes was to capture the sense that there are common patterns across fields. Archetypes help us to name those patterns, help to recognize our roles and our power in our place as facilitators. And also as I think we're going to talk about near the end is some of the cautionary notes we might want to keep in mind in doing facilitation work.

  Muna Mohamed: [00:07:09] Awesome. So we have these three archetypes that we're going to move through and just chat about a little bit. The first is the doula. The second is the smuggler. And the final one is the translator. And stay with us. We'll unpack these terms a little bit more and talk about how they connect to facilitation, even though they don't sound like it immediately. So I wanted to first start with Ammarah. Could you talk to us about the doula archetype and how we arrived there? Like who is the doula and what's their power?

  Ammarah Syed: [00:07:40] The doula is often the connector, and it's a very intimate space to be in. Other terms that are more accessible could be like the midwife or the mediator. The doula is the person who values and puts energy and time into the people who are being harmed. So the people who there is very little protection for, there are very little resources allocated towards. This is like the most front facing work that our archetype can do. It's often a role laid onto the intersectional people of our society, and more often than not, femme of color that are automatically often assigned these roles. They're in spaces where emotional labour is required. Often this labor is invisible but essential. So there is labour being done and not acknowledged, however, it is integral. So basically what doulas do is the care work. It's the work of humanizing intimate relations. It's tapping into the unnamed, whether it's the emotional labour that is invisibilized or micro-aggressions, or a whole range of things in between that we often don't notice palpably, but the effects are very real. These things have been systematically erased to serve the function of the institutions. What the doula does is often operationalize and name these intangible pieces in order to prevent harm. We have the roles of negotiating with different parties and showing up in authenticity around conflict that often happens, this unnamed labour that's happening. So naming it, negotiating with it, the cautions that we might extend to that role is where we're not being acknowledged as a doula, we burn out. There's powerlessness. You have a lot of circumstances where you can't do anything from the bureaucracy above you, and you can't do anything for the client and so it's just this kind of standstill where there's not much that can happen. A more fundamental thing that often does come into this role with is being socialized into this role. So the idea that they don't have a choice, which is so integral to name as a caution, because when you name that you're socialized into a role, you can then step out of it to see your power over your situation and your agency over that role.

  Muna Mohamed: [00:10:08] Yeah. I feel like we kind of arrived at this archetype of the doula when we were talking about how facilitators are these vessels for bringing about change or being vessels of support. And this doula role can be so powerful because in institutions and systems that treat people like they're numbers, like really treat people, not like humans, the doula archetype is the person or the facilitator that does the work of moving past that, to build an intimacy with each client that they have, or to build an intimacy with people directly, which requires so much of yourself. And there is actually such a strength and almost courage in that to be like, I'm going to make the room to see your humanity and acknowledge your humanity and try to figure out how to navigate the system to give you what you need. And in our research project, when we were talking with those that facilitate in the context of harm reduction work or client support work at a very grassroots level, many of them are playing this doula function that is so radical in some ways. But as you named, there's like this layer of socialization and of it being challenging to remove yourself from that role because it requires so much of you.

  Stuart Poyntz: [00:11:20] I would only add on that facilitation involves care, and it involves a kind of care in moments, sometimes of crisis. That's not unlike a doula who's taking care of somebody in the midst of birth, in the days and weeks that follow birth, when support and structures of care are really essential to making the route forward possible. And likewise in context of facilitation thinking of the facilitator as a doula is somebody who, as both of you have commented, they do things that are often invisible but are essential to how facilitation work empowers and enables communities to negotiate institutional dynamics and sometimes to confront institutions when they're not listening. I think what Ammarah had said about the cautionary notes are that this role, the facilitator, can become deeply exhausting, because carrying care is also a kind of burden that is hard to hold on to without times to recuperate, to reset, to revitalize oneself. And so the doula is both a space of real power and of real need in facilitation, but also one that needs itself to be... we need to be aware that when we're calling on facilitators to do more than seems reasonable. That's about the cautionary notes of being a doula at a time when too much is being asked and care of the facilitator is required as well.

  Muna Mohamed: [00:12:47] For folks who are listening, both Ammarah and I are women of colour, and what feels really big about this doula role that we can't fully unpack here is that we're socialized to this extent of, like, we carry the doula role in everything that we do. Like in our families, in our friend groups, that the work of being, like, does this situation actually require doula in me? Is that what this facilitated situation needs, or have I been socialized to think that this is the only way I can operate of giving so much of myself to this space as a facilitator? And that question, I think, can be very liberating for us to do this distancing between our roles and the institutions and to also just take care of ourselves.

  Ammarah Syed: [00:13:28] Yeah. And so the critical nature of asking ourselves that question is power, it is control. Because even in public, often, people will read us as that role. And it's like, I never met you, like, I don't know you, and yet you're still archetype-ing me in that role. So where do we find that control? So a quote that speaks into this is the different layers of accountability and who we're accountable to. Our accountability is to the community that we're working for and with but there's all these other outside factors that, you know, play an influential role. You know, you can get uninvited from certain tables, which limits your ability to do that work. You could lose your job. You can lose funding. So there's all these other things. So it's very easy to say, yeah, my accountability is to community first and foremost. But the reality is that there's all these other factors.

  Stuart Poyntz: [00:14:29] What's so interesting about that quote is it really captures the tensions that facilitators in their role as doulas have to negotiate between facing the institution and wanting to support and bring forward the needs of the community. And being in that place puts them in a kind of divided role of helping and assisting. That's an awkward place to be. It's a straining and demanding place to be. And I think with the archetype of the doula, we wanted to draw attention to the real demand that's put on the body of the facilitator. Muna, you were saying earlier, with the way that that corresponds with the larger social demands that are put on certain people, that are read on to certain people's bodies.

  Ammarah Syed: [00:15:16] Speaking directly to the bodies, just to paraphrase another quote, there's specifically a lot of talk about how our facilitators bodies are being affected by this. One of our interviewees said, my last job had a huge physical and emotional impact on me. It was an organization that does a lot of brilliant disability justice work and yet I was, you know, burnt out and not feeling supported in that space. It was very ableist, white and Zionist. But I had to discover that after months of hard work. So all this subtext that is contributing to the wear on our bodies.

  Sherry Ostapovitch: [00:16:06] Stay tuned for the next part of Facilitator archetypes: Navigating institutions as community engaged facilitators where Muna Mohamed, Stuart Poyntz, and Ammarah Syed discuss how the smuggler facilitator can get resources from institutions into communities.

  Muna Mohamed: [00:16:23] I wonder if we talk about our next archetype, which is the smuggler.

  Stuart Poyntz: [00:16:28] That's you Muna.

  Muna Mohamed: [00:16:29] That's me. I'm the smuggler. I'm the smuggler.

  Stuart Poyntz: [00:16:31] What's that about?

  Muna Mohamed: [00:16:32] Maybe actually, I'll read the quote, because I think the quote that we have from one of our team members, Casey, as we were doing this research, really captures the role of the smuggler, especially when it comes to financial dynamics and resources, how that connects with institutions, clearly. So Casey says, my facilitation practice, which speaks to my values in terms of resourcing communities, is about taking funds from granting streams and putting them into community members hands and households. And also about a DIY ethos, taking something small and making it bigger and making it more communal. And this is really the essence of the smuggler. The smuggler has such a deep accountability and responsibility to the community that they're working with and that they're serving, and that they care about. So that accountability is there across all the archetypes, but in the smugglers context they have this responsibility and they're, like, how can I finesse and sometimes manipulate the system to get the resources that are needed in communities hands? And sometimes this smuggler is finessing a granting system, using the right language to get grants into the hands of community members or money into the hands of community members. They think about resources so creatively, like they are not only thinking about tangible, like, money that goes into community, but they're thinking about what can be donated in kind. They're thinking about people and the power of volunteers. So the smuggler is really, really scrappy. That's the word we kept returning to when we talked about the smuggler is that they're super resourceful, they're really creative, and they really embody this DIY ethos that Casey named, which is that they are capable of caring for their communities. They are capable of finding the resources in order to support those that often don't get paid in the work that we're doing, especially with equity seeking communities.

  Muna Mohamed: [00:18:26] So that's facilitators, that's grassroots organizations, that's communities directly through mutual aid. One thing though, and I'd love to hear what you guys think about some of the cautions around the smuggler, because what they're operating within is a lot of risk. So they have to evaluate frequently. They always have to evaluate the risk that they're holding, or that they're maybe navigating as they work with these institutions. And because some of the work is around manipulating or finessing these systems, sometimes depending on the position that you hold, that does pose a risk. Like Ammarah, you were naming how unforgiving some of these institutions are and that sometimes can harm the person who's occupying this role of the smuggler. And, you know, I think a lot of smugglers are okay with that. That's part of the smugglers nature, is that they're like, yeah, you know, I'll carry the risk of whatever comes with doing this work because it's so important. And that's their strength. There is courage in that as well. But it is important for anyone who is carrying that smuggler role to really consider. Is this a risk I'm comfortable taking? Just to know that within themselves because when you're trying to finesse these systems, there's that question of, is this role pulling me out of my integrity? Is that comfortable for me in this space? How is occupying this role of the smuggler really aligned with my own integrity and authenticity? And am I able to separate that role from who I am as a person, which is maybe someone who carries that integrity and that authenticity?

  Stuart Poyntz: [00:19:54] I think it's fascinating the way you talk about the smuggler as negotiating risk, because there are times when we really do want to take on risk for the communities we're working with, and we see the need to play off institutions, work institutions, reset institutional relationships so that communities receive the resources, the support they legitimately deserve. And there's a beauty in taking those risks, but it's really important to hear you talk about the delicate dance that puts the facilitator in, because there's things at stake for them. There's a job, there's their own personal integrity. There are things that deeply matter and power relationships they've got to identify and know how to work with. At the same time, the sense of being able to make things happen is what the smuggler seems to highlight for us. And if the doula is the agent of care that makes things happen through care, the smuggler is the agent of happening by resetting and recalibrating relationships, which I think is a powerful place for facilitators to see themselves.

  Muna Mohamed: [00:21:03] I think that's a brilliant framing, because you're kind of seeing the pieces of the puzzle come together. Like the doula facilitates this really important role of care, and the smuggler pushes us to just, like, think of resources differently as well.

  Sherry Ostapovitch: [00:21:27] You’re listening to the last part of Facilitator Archetypes: Navigating institutions as community-engaged facilitators where Muna Mohamed, Stuart Poyntz, and Ammarah Syed talk about how translator facilitators negotiate and build bridges between institutions and communities.

  Stuart Poyntz: [00:21:45] The facilitator is translator. It's like the third piece of the puzzle for us. We thought of a facilitator as a translator because facilitators are in-between agents. They're go-betweens. They negotiate, they build bridges between communities and institutions and they do this role in ways that move ideas and perspectives across community and institutional spaces, especially to help institutions to hear communities, when those institutions aren't listening. I think many communities find themselves in places where facilitators are helpful for taking their meaning and embedding them in institutions and helping them to come alive. Institutions aren't always ready to be active listeners. And I think some of our interviewees in the research, they told us about this. Rubén, one of our team members, talks about community-engaged means doing facilitation with people who are outside of dominant institutions, like schools or universities or the government. When the community thinks of itself as outside of institutions, facilitators translate those community needs so that they're heard and acted on by institutions. They make institutions understandable to communities sometimes as well. There's an immense power in this, we thought, because facilitators support communities to get their perspectives heard by those in power. Facilitators have the capacity to open up and make sense of institutional practices and protocols so they're not confusing. They can be, in this way, code switchers with the ability really to dance with the two partners that they're working with, this back and forthing, this give and taking.

  Stuart Poyntz: [00:23:25] This role is supported by the power of deep listening, something that's absolutely essential. Another piece that one of our interviewees told us about, talking about the role of working with an Indigenous advisory circle. The job of the interviewee, she says, my job was just to listen, to provide information when asked. I wasn't there to dictate. I was really there to listen and present the work of the department and in response to the advisory circle doing the internal work of building buy-in, finding additional resources or other required resources to actualize what the community told us. There's a modesty that's part of this work. Sometimes being a translator is disruptive work. You're translating ideas and perspectives that institutions don't always want to hear. And in this way, it puts a facilitator in a role of being a disruptor of how institutions work. Some people love that role. For others, that's a tricky place to be, Because the truth is, structural power is hard to change. And I think facilitators know that most of all. So there's a delicate dance at stake here, but the facilitator is translator is agile and able in that dance with the two partners they're working with.

  Muna Mohamed: [00:24:37] You know, I think sometimes what can be so valuable about people who occupy the translator role is that they actually have a deep understanding of both, like they deeply understand the institution and they deeply understand community and understand why they function. And they have to have that in order to do the translation work well. And I think they're also often people who internally are very open, are very adaptable. And I think maybe the caution, because in all of these, we're talking about how to separate maybe the self from the role. For the translator, it's saying between these two worlds, where do I find myself like stepping away from the dance to be like, okay, who am I? What are my beliefs? What is the truth without a filter? Without like a translation filter, you know. And I think sometimes that's what can feel hard is the moments where you're not thinking about how to communicate. You're just like feeling that it's hard and and honoring that truth. Sometimes it's hard to create room as a translator.

  Ammarah Syed: [00:25:36] Speaking into that. You both spoke into the idea that you have to step into these roles and to know about each of these roles. That's why it is an archetype, right? It's because there's common threads, common code-switching, common ways of showing up.

  Muna Mohamed: [00:25:55] I think that transitions us really nicely into, like, how do we maybe even bring these archetypes together to understand how to show up as facilitators and institutions?

  Stuart Poyntz: [00:26:06] I think different facilitation projects require more of some archetype than the other, a movement between archetypes. I think what's true in facilitation is that we're often using these archetypes at strategically helpful moments. There are times, as Ammarah shared with us, that it's very clear that care and embedding structures of care is fundamental to allow communities to make sense of the situation they're trying to address and figure out and change often. But sometimes they need a facilitator who's going to be a smuggler, who's going to be like a pirate, who's going to go in and going to launch onto the ship of the institution and, and take some gold and bring it back. Sometimes it's a negotiator and it's a translator who's moving ideas back and forth to try to set new common ground or to find ways of making the ideas of communities that are hard to hear by institutions to make them hearable. I don't think these are exclusive roles. These are roles that we take on and use at different moments, as needed as required, by the job.

  Muna Mohamed: [00:27:14] I think what helps with the archetypes as a way to think about our roles is that it brings that agency back. We can acknowledge that it's not easy, like there's there's always going to be this pressure. But we do have this agency to just think about, even as I'm going to have to, to tackle and be within these tensions of myself, the institutions that I'm in and the communities that I care about. I do have choice in how I operate, and I do have the ability to distance myself from these roles. This can be a hat I put on. I can wake up one day and go into a space and be like, I think this space as a facilitator, especially if you're a facilitator that takes on, like, different kinds of jobs, this community organization needs me to smuggle. Like, that's what they need and I'm going to wear that hat. And especially as someone who's connected with or been the doula in so many of my facilitation spaces, it's been empowering to think about the archetypes of something that bring agency back into my work.

  Ammarah Syed: [00:28:09] I think even bringing in the archetypes and us being able to step in and out of them creates autonomy; it creates control. Autonomy and control is the number one way to combat trauma.

  Stuart Poyntz: [00:28:23] Building on that, Ammarah, facilitators don't always control the situation they're in, so having multiple archetypes gives them the flexibility to mobilize robust agency.

  Muna Mohamed: [00:28:33] Yes. That's it!

  Stuart Poyntz: [00:28:35] And and that's important in response to trauma. That's important in response to immovable institutions. That's important in response to well-being and self-care.

  Ammarah Syed: [00:28:47] I do want to say a quote that Rubén said, and it applies so perfectly. I think it was the revolution is going to be slow, and we have to find ways to care for each other during it. Creating something like archetypes off these systems of financial abuse is one way we can care.

  Muna Mohamed: [00:29:08] You know what? I think that wraps it up beautifully. Thank you all for listening. We hope that these archetypes serve as a way for you to understand your work and your role in facilitation.

  Ammarah Syed: [00:29:18] And the autonomy for you to remove yourself from that when you need to. 

  Muna Mohamed: [00:29:23] Whenever you need to. Exactly.

  Sherry Ostapovitch: [00:29:25] You’ve just listened to Facilitator Archetypes: Navigating institutions as community-engaged facilitators, part of the Pedagogies of Community Engagement Collective special podcast series on The WhyPAR Podcast. Make sure you catch the other two episodes such as Saving or Engaging? Rethinking Community Facilitation where you can listen to facilitators reflecting on their own experiences of saviourism. Or listen to the episode, From “Oh shit!” to “Oh shift” where you can find out how facilitators navigate when things don’t quite go according to plan.  

Details

This podcast episode uses 3 archetypes: the doula, the smuggler and translator to explore the role that many community engaged facilitators take in navigating the institutions that they work within and for. Through the lens of these archetypes, we expand on the ways that community engaged facilitators  leverage their power or position to work towards justice and safety for the communities they are accountable to. Embodying these archetypes as a facilitator is often either a deliberate choice or a reflection of the unique gifts each facilitator carries with them.

Music and production by Sherry Ostapovitch

References and Further Reading

Ostapovitch, S. (2025) Facilitator archetypes: Navigating institutions as community engaged facilitators, a conversation with Muna Mohamed, Stuart Poyntz, and Ammarah Syed with the Pedagogies of Community Engagement Collective. (No 1.) [Audio podcast episode]. In The whyPAR Podcast. https://www.communityfacilitation.ca/resources/facilitator-archetypes

Episode 17: From "oh sh*t!" to "oh shift", a conversation with Leila Angod, Jessica Bleuer, Rose Gutierrez, and Ruben Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández

• Read Transcript

  From “oh shit!” to “oh shift”, a conversation with Leila Angod, Jessica Bleuer, Rose Gutierrez, and Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández and the Pedagogies of Community Engagement Collective. Hosted by Sherry Ostapovitch.

  Sherry Ostapovitch: [00:00:13] Welcome to the WhyPAR Podcast, a podcast of the Youth Research Lab at OISE - the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. 

  My name is Sherry Ostapovitch, and this episode of the WhyPAR Podcast is the second in a special series produced by the Pedagogies of Community Engagement Collective. The PeCEP project was created to explore, generate and share knowledge about facilitation practices that support community-engaged work across different sectors. In this special series of three podcasts, members of the PeCEC reflect on their experiences as community-engaged facilitators, confronting some of the dilemmas and tensions, as well as the opportunities and joys of working with, in, and for communities. 

  This podcast episode entitled, From "oh shit!" to "oh shift" is a conversation with Leila Angod, Jessica Bleuer, Rose Gutierrez, and Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández. They share moments when their facilitation plans were ruptured by unexpected challenges. Stay tuned to the "shift" to find out how to think differently about these moments, and what facilitators can learn and do, when things fall apart.

  Rose Gutierrez: [00:01:22] Hi folks, my name is Rose Gutierrez. I'm a community-engaged facilitator. I've been facilitating from the 1990s, started around doing a lot of work in terms of equity, moved into community arts, and it's a pleasure to be in this conversation.

  Jessica Bleuer: [00:01:38] Hi, my name is Jessica Bleuer and I'm also a community-engaged facilitator. I use a lot of theater of the oppressed and dramatherapy in my work, and I'm also now teaching at Concordia University. My work really focuses on equity-addressing spaces and dignity-promoting spaces.

  Leila Angod: [00:01:56] Hi, my name is Leila Angod. I do school-based youth participatory action research. I'm an Assistant Professor at Carleton University in Ottawa, and I teach in the Childhood and Youth Studies program, focusing on youth activism and anti-racism.

  Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández: [00:02:12] Hi everyone, I'm Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández. I'm a community-engaged researcher whose primary work is in the context of classrooms, also doing school based WhyPAR. And I am a Professor and Chair of the Department of Social Justice Education at the University of Toronto.

  Leila Angod: [00:02:44] This is a podcast episode about those oh shit moments.

  Leila Angod: [00:02:47] Those moments that come up and break the intention of where you're wanting to go as a facilitator in the group. So this is a tension. Like, I feel like I should move things, like this is part of what I wanted to talk about with the "oh shit" moments, because I feel like, you know, the desire for forward momentum, right, to get where we're going.

  Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández: [00:03:11] And we've all had those moments, right. We've all had those moments where, you know, we thought things are going to go a certain way and then something happens and you're like, oh shit, now what?

  Rose Gutierrez: [00:03:19] Well, absolutely. I think, oh shit, moments are just part of the landscape. We'll all experience that as a facilitator. We have to kind of also decide and figure out, in terms of our skills and experience, what to do in those moments. Sometimes they're really helpful, you know, and sometimes they're very scary. Right. And we have to kind of assess, you know, depending on what it is that we're doing, what to do in those "oh shit" moments. So this podcast is a really great conversation amongst us as community facilitators to just kind of share our knowledge, right, share our knowledge and our experiences. So hopefully other folks who will be in that same position as a facilitator can maybe learn from some of those things.

  Leila Angod: [00:03:59] Yeah. And I think to normalize those "oh shit" moments too, that, yes, it's going to happen.

  Jessica Bleuer: [00:04:05] It's happened to all of us. 

  Leila Angod: [00:04:05] Yeah.

  Jessica Bleuer: [00:04:07] What are some of those moments from your own practice? Like I'm thinking about I'm teaching this classroom, I have this very carefully planned class, and then a student, completely not on topic, starts reflecting on how much he appreciates this very controversial figure. Um, you know, he brings up Jordan Peterson being, like, a mentor to him, and something changes in the classroom. And I look around and I'm noticing the reactions of women in the classroom, of trans folk in the classroom, and there's an oh shit moment for me. Okay. What am I going to do now with this?

  Rose Gutierrez: [00:04:51] Yeah.

  Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández: [00:04:52] Yeah. So how did you navigate it? What were some of the things that were going through your mind?

  Jessica Bleuer: [00:04:57] The first thing that was going through my mind was group cohesion. And what was happening to the group cohesion in this class that needed to stay together for two years to finish their program? Um, the second thing I was thinking about was emotional safety. And how had this introduction to this very controversial figure interrupted any small kind of trust building that had already happened in the class? We were three weeks in. And I was thinking about, you know, violence in the classroom and how we were going to move through this revelation together and what it meant. I didn't have any assumptions, but what did it mean for the people in the classroom, and what was it going to mean for the relationships? And so the reason why I said, "Oh shit, what do I do?" is because I was thinking about so many things and it was like, which strand of that do I pick up? Is this the right moment? I also had something that I had planned on teaching. So do I push that aside? Do I really recognize and help unpack? Do I actually not help unpack because I don't want to highlight or amplify this? But can I get away with not, you know, I'm not sure. It's funny because that was a classroom, but if I was a therapist and someone said to me, I love Jordan Peterson, I would literally say, "tell me more".

  Jessica Bleuer: [00:06:14] Right, right, right. Because they're trying to communicate something, and my job is there to listen. But then there's something about when we're in a group, our responsibility is not only to one person, but it is to the group. And so that completely changes how I'm going to respond. Because now I'm, I actually have no idea what he's going to say about Jordan Peterson. Jordan Peterson wrote some, like, self-help books that many people still find very helpful, that are not controversial at all. Like they tell you to clean your room, for example. But I feared that what he was going to say could be misogynistic, transphobic, racist, you know, and it's possible that somebody wanted to be like, wait a minute, now I need to know if I can trust you. What exactly is it that you appreciate about Jordan Peterson? And I definitely didn't go that way. I got very nervous, and I said, we're not talking about Jordan Peterson right now. We're talking about... And I brought it back to the classroom environment. But what I did in that moment is I completely ignored all the emotional things that were happening, that then in future classes, I ended up needing to address because there had been such a rupture in that moment.

  Rose Gutierrez: [00:07:26] So do you think that there are other tips or like steps to take when you have an "oh shit" moment?

  Jessica Bleuer: [00:07:34] I imagine that the way that we can respond to an "oh shit" moment is as diverse as the people in the room, including the facilitators and the participants. But I would say that, out of some research, some participatory action research that came out of Concordia University, I was working with a group of professors that were trying to find ways to address racial and ethnic microaggressions in higher education. And one of the things that this group of professors came up with was this acronym called PRR, which stands for pause, reflect, respond. And the idea is that when a microaggression happens in a classroom, that, it can be really important for us to pause and take some time to think about what's happening to our nervous systems in this moment. Like, how has the harm entered our bodies? Are our hearts beating fast? How has our breathing changed? Are people noticing tension in their body? Are people even in their bodies? Are people kind of to protect themselves, dissociating a little bit from the moment? Um, and to kind of engage in some co-regulation exercises to really recognize and validate that these moments can be very scary, they can be very harmful, and they can bring us back to other moments in our lives where we've experienced harm. And so that's the pause of that acronym.

  Jessica Bleuer: [00:08:56] And then the next thing is when there's a little bit more co-regulation. And this is very important, the goal is not to regulate the harm away okay. It's just about building a bit of capacity to really address what has just happened, the "oh shit" moment in the classroom. And so when there's a little bit more capacity because the classroom has either decided to take a break, go for a walk, do some breathing exercises together, something. A little bit more co-regulation. Then the idea is to really reflect about what is happening in the classroom between the people in the classroom and of course, like what other systems, systemic issues are entering the classroom in that moment. And that reflection can happen in discussion, that reflection can happen with a prepared kind of survey that the professor kind of says, okay, go onto your phones or your laptops, and let's just answer some questions about what's happening here. So it's like an internal reflection before it becomes an interactive reflection. And so that after you've paused, you've co-regulated a little bit and then you've reflected on the larger systemic issues that are happening and the interrelational issues that are happening in the classroom. Now, we might have a little more capacity to respond. So that's the second R respond.

  Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández: [00:10:08] I was thinking about the specific example that you were giving, Jessica, and just kind of building on this idea that there's probably lots of responses, lots of possible ways of addressing an "oh shit" moment. None of which are probably perfect, because in a group context, everybody has different needs, and there's no way that as a facilitator you can meet everybody's needs. So somebody needs are going to go are going to go unmet in some way or another. Maybe you're wrong, you can even address your own needs. And I was even thinking about the person, the person who's making the comment, right. Like one question that, in the reflection process that would come up for me would be like, what is the need that is being expressed when this person clearly, deliberately is introducing the name of a person or an idea that is going to be disruptive. Like, do they realize how disruptive it is? Is it intentional? What are they looking for? What's the need that's going on that is provoking this person to do that? And then I think, yes, there are lots of responses and there are probably some definite "no" responses like definitely things that you should not do, like probably putting all your attention on that person. Why don't you spend the next ten minutes talking about Jordan Peterson? That would probably be the wrong thing to do. So there are some clearly things that you should not do, but there's no clear answer as to what you should, right, because at the end of the day, the needs in front of you are...

  Jessica Bleuer: [00:11:35] Are so diverse.

  Rose Gutierrez: [00:11:36] And there's so many factors, right? It's like your relationship to this group, your history to this group, how long it is that you are able or have the capacity to work with this group. So many factors that there's a checklist that happens, you know, when you're like, okay, is it a pause? Is it a direct, you know, response? Is it a break? Like what is it? But I think it's there's that kind of intuitiveness to the response. I think that's really important. And, and I do think it's also important to really like to set up a space where people are, um, are committed to the process because that response might not work. But then you work through another response that can maybe be better for like to address whatever harm is happening in the group.

  Leila Angod: [00:12:20] So I love what you said, Rose, about intuitiveness, because when something comes up for me, the "oh shit" moments are, it's that moment when something that's present in the space bubbles to the surface and makes itself visible and apparent, and you have to then decide which of the multitude of pathways are you going to take to address it? And for me, it comes back to feel. And I need to feel the way forward first. The example that I wanted to share and just to say that, you know, we had a we had some really rich conversations about which stories to share and the ethics of sharing them and the risks of sharing them as well. The one that I wanted to share was about when a group of young people that I was working with, some of the challenges in the relationships within that group that had occurred outside of the research project, entered into the space. Um, and so the violence that had occurred outside really fractured the relationships in the group, and the project was derailed. It was really a struggle, um, to move forward on the day when we came together and some folks were missing and we knew why, and the young people wanted to talk about it. And it was a very fractured group. Emotions were running really high. I was afraid in that moment for things to spiral even further out of control.

  Leila Angod: [00:13:44] And I'm saying the word control while critiquing myself for saying that. But for things to escalate on an emotional level, on a reactivity level, that would then further harm the group. And so it was hard to feel the way forward there, because now I'm dysregulated from a nervous system standpoint. Now I'm frazzled. Now I'm worried. Now I'm anxious. And so thinking about how the desire that was coming up for me was to have forward movement towards the goals of the project and wrapping up what we had agreed to do as a group. I would love to tell myself in that moment, to just extend some generosity to myself and kindness to myself, to take a pause and take a minute and regroup with the facilitator team, who's also really struggling. And I might have then had that intuitive insight at that moment to say, you know, we could do individual self-reflection here. We don't have to debate this and unravel all of this as a group. There are other things we can do to come together. But while still acknowledging that this is present in the room and this is happening. I think what guided me in that decision, where I had to make that decision between the multitude of options, was to reduce harm and to move forward towards the goals we had agreed on.

  Rose Gutierrez: [00:15:05] I love that you're sharing that story for the second time, that I'm hearing it deeper. When I hear it, there is so much that is required of us as community-engaged facilitators. That is so unfair, actually. You know, we have to be the host, right, to make sure that we're creating a space that feels welcoming, accessible, you know, where there's like multiple voices at play. We're doing all that. We're planning the agendas. We're also teachers. Like we're not therapists, but there's, what do you call it? Like social personal history that comes into the space. And I don't know about you guys, but besides going to teachers' college, who trained you to do this work? Like, it's your lived experience, it's community development, it's sitting with your family and like navigating conversations with like, your siblings. I know that academically, there's probably more courses than when I was younger to kind of do this work, but it's like life, work. And it's hard, it's hard because you're put in a position with huge responsibilities. We, you know, we come to this work, you know, conscious, you know, and have kind of our own values and ethics in operation. And we want to care for the group. But the other thing that I think what we do when I feel like we professionalize this, this practice that we have is that we all of a sudden assume that we're, um, we're kind of like the leader of the group, like we're responsible. But if we think about it more, as in community liberation terms, how can we shift the balance of those "oh shit" moments? Because they're happening to all of us.

  Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández: [00:16:39] I actually think that it's funny that you feel that responsibility, and I'll speak for myself, because I don't want to project my own, my own traumas onto people. But and we've come up with, this word trauma has come up a few times. But I think that a lot of times the things that feel like intuitions, whether it's the intuition that drives how we go about planning, as well as the intuition that drives our reaction to those "oh shit" moments that break the plan that we had. Oftentimes, those intuitions are often to the result of trauma. And so I'll speak for myself like, you know, I grew up in an environment where as the oldest in the family, where there were these kind of moments of crisis as a child, I ended up having to navigate, facilitating conflict in my family. And in a lot of ways, that is where my intuitions come from. They come from the trauma of having had to be the facilitator. Having had to be the person who was reading the room in order to resolve conflict or in order to navigate, you know, a family member's alcoholism or something like that. And of course, that's true for everybody, right? Everybody in that room brings with them not just who they are politically in terms of positionality, but all the traumas that have informed their trajectory to that place. I wonder, like the piece about reflection is really important, but I also wonder about the limits of that sort of analysis in terms of our responsibility to this space we're in. You know, Jessica, you mentioned sort of having had the background from therapy, what you can or cannot do or what you're expected to do within a therapy environment versus a classroom environment or a community environment.

  Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández: [00:18:20] So that's one thing that's been sort of circulating in my head as I've been listening. And maybe this will break the flow a little bit. But the other, in response to your question, Rose, I think one thing I've learned, because most of my community-engaged work has been within the context of a classroom, a classroom that is usually not my own classroom. I go into a high school or a secondary school, and I'm inhabiting somebody else's classroom, is that the classroom is so laden with power and authority and roles, prescribed roles, that is really, really difficult to work against them. So I was sharing earlier a lot of my "oh shit" moments were moments when I realized that despite my best intentions, what I thought I was doing, was not what the people I was working with thought I was doing. And there was this complete mismatch. Right? And that story I shared was I was doing this facilitated, I want to use the word I thought I was using, which was I was facilitating a conversation about the knowledge. And then when the conversation was over, what the student said to me is that I was lecturing. I was just completely dumbfounded, you know, like, I have been doing all this work that I thought was wonderful facilitation, and as far as the students were concerned, I was lecturing. And this complete mismatch between what I thought I was doing oftentimes in the classroom because it is so laden with power. Those are the "oh shit" moments, right, you really think that you're doing this whole work to empower the students to take responsibility for this space, and low and behold, they're still acting like students in a classroom. And they don't believe anything that you just said.

  Jessica Bleuer: [00:19:47] It's so important what you're talking about power and all the power in the "oh shit" moment so that even if I have the "perfect" facilitation response, whatever that means, perfect in quotation marks, facilitation response to something. I cannot circumvent the power that I hold in my body with all my positionality. I cannot circumvent the power I bring into the space, or the power that I engage in relationship with someone else in the space, or even the institution that I'm in.

  Sherry Ostapovitch: [00:20:34] Stay tuned for the second half of From "oh shit!" to "oh shift" where Leila Angod, Jessica Bleuer, Rose Gutierrez and Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández discuss the "shift", describing how they moved through those "oh shit" moments and were able to adjust their practices.

  Rose Gutierrez: [00:20:50] It's interesting when you like, you have a huge kind of analysis in terms of what happens in an "oh shit" moment. So when you're designing a workshop for a group, I put in so much time, work, effort to kind of design it so that it could optimize or maximize, you know, the kind of conversation that can happen, learning that can happen. And in fact, I try to do everything that I can to not have an "oh shit" moment, right? But it's interesting now that we're talking about "oh shit" moment around, what is the value of those "oh shit" moments? And is it really a successful session or group or conversation if you don't have an "oh shit" moment? Right? And so there's that tension around, are you pushing enough? You know, are people comfortable enough to kind of be able to disclose what it is that will bring them the learning and the group forward? Um, or have you set it up so that the "oh shit" moment is really like, holy shit, like, this is going to go down and it's not going to go down well. I don't even know, as a facilitator, if I have the skills to actually move it in a way that people can come back together, you know, in a whole kind of way. So it's interesting, when I first thought about it, I thought, no, you never want an "oh shit" moment, but maybe you do.

  Rose Gutierrez: [00:22:00] And if you can create the condition, or if you can scale up as a facilitator to be able to navigate them a little bit better on some or most occasions, maybe those "oh shit" moments are really important to kind of like get people to think around whatever the topic is that you're facilitating around. The strategy of the conversation was shared with all of us, because we're all experiencing that "oh shit" moment in a different kind of way, even the person who is creating the "oh shit" moment. And that it's like there's more collective responsibility with the group and maybe the strategy or the healing of the harm of that act can be better. But those "oh shit" moments are really tough because in my experience, the root is around power, privilege, oppression. They're systemic. Right? And so, you know, you got to care for people collectively or not. You got to do some teaching at the same time because it's a teaching moment and you got to repair. You're like a juggler at that moment. It's spiritually taxing. Honestly. Some of us, you know, will just do a certain amount of equity workshops. And then I got to take a break.

  Jessica Bleuer: [00:23:13] You know Rose Just brought up this idea of the juggler, and then you were juggling so much in these moments. And it makes me think about, like, how do we conceptualize our role in those moments? And I love thinking about it as a juggler, because I am. I'm trying to juggle minimizing harm in a space where harm will inevitably happen just because of the power dynamics. Um, even if it's a small harm, sometimes it's a much larger harm. And I'm trying to juggle whatever the collective objective that we've all consented to do together, I'm trying to juggle trying to meet that collective objective. I guess I'm trying to juggle my own nervous system and like how activated I feel in the particular moment. But I'm also trying to juggle a bit of that therapist role. I want other people to be well in this space, whether I am or I'm not a therapist. And generally I'm not hired to be a therapist in these spaces, you know? And I'm an activist, too. Yeah. We juggle all these roles in these moments.

  Rose Gutierrez: [00:24:09] We just talked a little while earlier around multiple responses to these things. And I think, yeah, there's a huge diverse number of responses. Like these are not solutions, right? But it's probably good to think that we're in a moment, like we're in a process moment right now, in which it's going to take a bit of time. Right. Like, well we know colonization took, 500 years into colonization, it's taken some time to figure it out. It's going to take some time in this moment of harm. Right. To move to all the different layers of repair. Right. Or growth in that. But I just want to fix it at that moment. And it's probably, it's not possible. Like you have to pause. You know, you have to decrease the harm at the moment or provide some care like bandaid care at the moment. And then it's like, what is the healing that needs to happen with the group when something so violent has just happened in the group? You know, those "oh shit" moments ugh they're painful. Nobody wants to go through them, but they're really part of this world. They're kind of part of this world and the world that we're in anyway, irregardless of if we're facilitating a group.

  Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández: [00:25:17] And I was thinking in terms of people who are listening, who might want really concrete things to hang on to. Some of them have come up in the conversation so far. We've talked about this idea of pausing to reflect, to allow the moment to sit. You know, I think that's something that is worth thinking about, and that requires some facilitation too sometimes. To just basically actually say that explicitly of saying, okay, acknowledging something just happened, let's just take 30 seconds to sit with it for a moment and think about how we're feeling. I think that pause and reflect in the moment. You also mentioned, in terms of a concrete step, acknowledging and offering care, naming, naming, the thing that happened and what's occurring in the moment. But I'm also thinking, Rose, in terms of what you're thinking of the learning process, sort of some of the strategies we've used in terms of the long term addressing that. I can think, for example, of instances where the best approach was actually to bring an outside source, to bring somebody from the outside who is new and who might have expertise on the particularities. You know, I remember one time we had this breakdown in our group having to do with, there was a trans student who was Indigenous and an Indigenous person in the group who said some things that felt quite transphobic. And at the moment, I felt like it wasn't really my place to facilitate that as a non-Indigenous person. And so we brought an external facilitator to help us work through that. Other times, maybe caucusing is a good way to help different people in the group. Naming, here are the positionalities that are sort of implicated in this conversation. Let's caucus around the issue and think about what it means to live in this space from that particular perspective. What's going through your head? Leila?

  Leila Angod: [00:27:08] Yeah. A few things. One, the timepiece is so hard and it's so hard in schools. There are so many layers of the power relationships when working in schools, and time is at the heart of the pressures of the coloniality of schooling. I'm thinking about also then how you're embedded in policies and procedures, things that have to happen when harm occurs in a school setting, and how things are required to be addressed. And, Ruben, the idea that intuition is, um, almost a reaction based on history and experience. And I just wonder if there's room for just other wisdoms to come through that are just from elsewhere, that are just not that. That are just not from our experience, that are not from our traumas, that are not from our histories. But it's that like, insight. It's that moment that really comes from somewhere else. Where you feel, you feel it in a way that is totally different from analysis and totally different from the sum of your experiences. And how can we make space for that wisdom that I'm calling intuition and feel in facilitation? Because I do feel like so many of us are, are coming from, are bringing or weaving those things in in ways that we don't name and we don't talk about. And so part of the pause, and I love too, Jessica, about the PRR and the idea of like bringing in the animal kingdoms to resources to draw from wisdom, other kinds of wisdom, to draw from that knowledge.

  Jessica Bleuer: [00:28:51] And when you say the animal kingdom, you're referring to purr being like the sound that the cat makes to co-regulate?

  Leila Angod: [00:28:55] Yeah. Thanks. Because we didn't say that part. Exactly, exactly.

  Leila Angod: [00:28:59] Those moments where we pause, one of the most challenging things about facilitating and it's amplified in these moments is the doubleness of I'm listening to myself, I'm listening to my thoughts, I have an awareness of my feelings, but I'm also bringing that awareness to each individual in the group and bringing that awareness to the group dynamic as a whole. And it's like this, this consciousness that is really it has an intensity in how expansive it is. And to me, there is something very, very concretely spiritual about that work of observing. I'm interested in the tools that can bring us to those places of like responsiveness and observation and feeling and deep listening. Um. That still connect back to the structural and still connect back to the power dynamics and how we, Rose, you were talking about moving forward collectively, how we do that. But I'm trying to like wiggle some, a little bit more room and sort of just the idea of where we're drawing from when we're resourcing ourselves.

  Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández: [00:30:07] Thank you. I'm so glad you brought that up. And you're absolutely correct. I should have said that intuition sometimes draws on trauma, but also draws on many other things. But you reminded me, is that another strategy that I think is really good to draw upon when these "oh shit" moments happen. And I'm going to use this word conscious of the fact that it means something specific in the context of Indigenous work, as it's the word ceremony. Um, and maybe it's helpful to distinguish between ceremony sort of capital C in the sense of ceremonies that have a cultural trajectory and a cultural foundation that deserves respect and acknowledgment and oftentimes should only be done by those who have that history. But I'm also thinking ceremonies small c in the terms of protocol and ritual. So, for example, sometimes one way to address these "oh shit" moments is to establish a protocol for acknowledging how we're being impacted by them. So, you know, I think of the ritual that we often had in our group, the rose and the thorn, where every time we would open with a space for each member of the group to share something positive that was happening in their life and something that was being challenging, that was a constant ritual. It was a permanent sort of ritual that always often helped us come together. Sometimes one way to address these "oh shit" moments is to invoke ritual as a way to make yourself present, and to allow for those spiritual dimensions of intuition and ancestral notions of intuition to express themselves through the ritual.

  Rose Gutierrez: [00:31:36] So I'm wondering, in terms of reframing, "oh shit" now. After we've done 40 minutes, um, you know, because like, at first when I heard of "oh shit", I was like, my reaction was, "oh shit", actually and your body starts to sweat. Because that's the experience of "oh shit". But maybe that's a very like colonized reaction. And that is based on hundreds of years of systems of oppression where if there are "oh shit" moments like it really is "oh, shit" and it's actually detrimental to yourself and community and family. Whereas now, if we can unpack that a little bit in terms of looking at Indigenous practice, that "oh shit" moments are probably just ways of life and navigating them is not so punitive as what was taught to us by colonizers. That's very interesting for me to be learning here on this podcast.

  Leila Angod: [00:32:28] I love that! And I wonder if there's shift moments instead of shit moments, because Jessica was sharing something really beautiful... About shift breaks as a really lovely tool. I wonder if you would say something?

  Jessica Bleuer: [00:32:43] Yeah, well, we're just talking about how do we normalize collectively talking about times when our access hasn't been that accessible or times when harm has happened? And so we were talking earlier about this idea of having built into any facilitation structure these moments that we call shift moments, where we invite the people that we're working with to think about, what we actually ask this direct question, "is there anything that we could be doing, any shifts that we could be doing that would make this work more accessible to you?" And that everyone would know that there would be multiple times throughout the process that we would be asking this question and then really listening to the response from this question. So I love this instead of, "oh shit", it's "oh shift". And knowing that we need to continue shifting and responding to what's happening in the space, including harm that happens really in any space. Conflict and harm. Rubén, you were talking about ritual. And are there these structures like "oh shift" in place that can help us through these more messy moments that are very common in facilitation, and I just wanted to name that the pause, reflect, respond is a structure, like a ritual that people can be, you know, it doesn't have to be this one, but that we agree on. When these hard conversations happen, we do have these resources. We can pause and we can decide what that pause means. Does it mean we literally take a break for a bit and come back? Does it mean that we breathe together? Is it a co-regulation practice? And then we can reflect in many different ways with questions that we've come up with before the "oh shift" moment or the "oh shit moment". And in that structure of pause, reflect and respond, the response section was really just drawing from all the literature on microaggression strategies, because there is so much published about what to do when a microaggression occurs in a space, and some of it's really good.

  Rose Gutierrez: [00:34:45] So can I ask you a question about that? Like in all that literature, is there an approach that examines it in the way we've just been talking about? Does it look at these community facilitated processes as kind of more of like a spiritual process space?

  Jessica Bleuer: [00:35:02] In a sense, like Derald Sue who's, you know, a big microaggression scholar talks about like leaning into the process, like, try to move away from the content and try to listen to the process of what's happening between people. There's a lot of leaning in, which I think is a very spiritual concept, like avoiding, let's just move right in. There's a lot of looking at the metacommunication. So you said this, but what it feels like you were communicating was this racist idea, or this stereotypical idea or this misogynist idea. The literature has such diverse and vast microaggression strategies, but some of them do come from that, that aspect of like, yeah, this is normal, it happens all the time, let's lean in and understand what just happened here.

  Leila Angod: [00:35:47] And I love bringing ritual, the idea of ritual, something important is happening here and that we're not addressing it as something broken, something that has gone wrong. But we have a toolkit of things to draw from that nourish our community, that we enjoy putting into practice in this space. And leaning into me is just the fact of like, you know what, I'm not engaging with this from the past or the future, but like what is really, really present in the room right now. Because in these moments, it's so often a feeling of perceivably, a negative emotional response. You want to get away from that feeling and you want to get away from what's happening. But it's like, well, something really important is happening here. How can we go more deeply into it? How can we feel all the feelings and feel everything that is here? And I think the ritual piece is such a beautiful way of like, well, we have tools, we have tools, let's now put them into play in this space.

  Rose Gutierrez: [00:36:41] Isn't that really the meaning of when we say we want to decolonize our practice? We want to see it in a very different kind of way than we're actually than have been trained to see things. Even the original title of "oh shit" is really very much, of like, embedded in kind of a very colonized. Oh, there's so much work to do always. Right? Like its a colonized mind. Let's shift the framework.

  Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández: [00:37:03] Because you're right. If the definition is, "oh shit", are those moments where what we have planned breaks down. Then by saying, "oh shift", the definition shifts from, things change from what we had planned to what actually needs to happen.

  Jessica Bleuer: [00:37:17] Thinking about that, there has to be some decolonial literacy and some emotional literacy in order to embrace this new frame. Because just thinking about these moments, you know, and students and participants and teachers and facilitators, we feel a lot of very difficult feelings in those moments. And sometimes having those difficult feelings makes us think that something's wrong. As opposed to what is your body trying to tell you and teach you? And what is the wisdom of your body in this moment? That anger you feel. That anger is protective, that anger is resistant. Resistance in a resilient, resistant kind of way.

  Sherry Ostapovitch: [00:38:00] You've just listened to From "oh shit!" to "oh shift", part of the Pedagogies of Community Engagement Collective special podcast series on the WhyPAR Podcast. Make sure you catch the other two episodes, such as Saving or Engaging? Rethinking Community Facilitation, where you can find out how facilitators reflect on their own experiences of saviorism. Or learn about facilitation, doulas, smugglers, and translators in the episode, Facilitator Archetypes: Navigating institutions as community-engaged facilitators.

Details

In this podcast we share moments when our facilitation plans were ruptured by unexpected challenges or situations. We discuss how we moved from through those moments and the shifts we made to adjust our practice. 

Music and production by Sherry Ostapovitch

References and Further Reading

Ostapovitch, S. (2025) From “oh shit!” to “oh shift”, a conversation with Leila Angod, Jessica Bleuer, Rose Gutierrez, and Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández and the Pedagogies of Community Engagement Collective (No 2.) [Audio podcast episode]. In The whyPAR Podcast. https://www.communityfacilitation.ca/resources/oh-shift

Episode 16: Saving or Engaging? Rethinking Community Facilitation, a conversation with Ananya Bangerjee and Annie Chau

• Read Transcript

  Saving or Engaging? Rethinking Community Facilitation, a conversation with Ananya Banerjee and Annie Chau with Pedagogies of Community Engagement Collective. Hosted by Sherry Ostapovitch and Hani Sadati.
  

  Sherry Ostapovitch: [00:00:13] Welcome to the WhyPAR Podcast, a podcast of the Youth Research Lab at OISE - the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. 

  My name is Sherry Ostapovitch and this episode of the WhyPAR Podcast is the first in a special series produced by Pedagogies of Community Engagement Collective. The PeCEP project was created to explore, generate and share knowledge about facilitation practices that support community-engaged work across different sectors. In this special series of three podcasts, members of the PeCEP collective reflect on their experiences as community-engaged facilitators, confronting some of the dilemmas and tensions, as well as the opportunities and joys of working with, in, and for communities. 

  In this first podcast episode entitled, Saving or Engaging? Rethinking Community Facilitation Hani Sadati speaks with Ananya Banerjee and Annie Chau about saviorism, where facilitators step in to ‘save’ or ‘fix’ people or communities that are marginalized. Get ready for some honest reflections from community-engaged researchers and facilitators who have questioned the very existence of their work.

  Hani Sadati: [00:01:22] Saving or engaging? This is the question. When we enter a community space, especially as facilitators, researchers or organizers, what are we really doing? Are we stepping in to save or are we showing up to support? For those of us new to this work, how do we even begin to recognize the difference between saviorism and solidarity? And for those who have been in this field for a while, where are we now in our journey of community engagement and facilitation? Are we still centering ourselves or are we learning how to pass the baton to communities to lead their own change? This podcast isn't here to preach or prescribe. Instead, it's a space for reflection, for sharing the personal stories, although uncomfortable at times, but authentic. And sharing missteps, lessons, and growth that come with doing this work. We are diving into the real and often messy work of combating the savior role of learning how to step back while still showing up, and of supporting grassroots leadership without taking the mic. So if you're wondering how to approach community engagement with humility, intention, and care, this conversation is for you. Welcome, listeners. My name is Hani Saadati. I'm supporting the Center for Community-Based Research in the role of senior Researcher, and I'm here with Dr. Ananya Tina Banerjee and Annie Chau as my guests today for this amazing conversation that we are going to have. Dr. Ananya Tina Banerjee is an. Assistant Professor and EDI lead at the School of Population and Global Health at McGill University. Her work bridges epidemiology, qualitative research and community-based participatory research with a focus on racial health equity, particularly in South Asian communities. And Annie Chau is a PhD candidate in Social Justice Education at the University of Toronto and a part-time lecturer at Sheridan College. With a background in adult education and over a decade of experience in community-based gender justice work, her research explores decolonial feminisms, refugee studies, and narrative inquiry. Okay, let's dive into this conversation. So welcome.

  Ananya Banerjee: [00:03:45] Thank you. We're excited to be here. Yeah.

  Hani Sadati: [00:03:48] Well, I'm going to start with reading a quote that comes out from the findings of the project Pedagogies of Community Engagement project. And this is from one of the participants of Neighborhood Arts Network focus group that we did. I'm going to read this quote, and then I'm going to ask one question about uh, related to this, uh, quote. So the participant says regarding the savior complex and saviors quote, they are here because they want to help you. I'm like, no, you're not helping. We are here for social responsibility. End of the quote. When you hear this quote, what comes to your mind? What do you make of it? Maybe I can start with Ananya.

  Ananya Banerjee: [00:04:34] You know, it really reminds me, um, reading this article that was published in The Atlantic by Teju Cole, who is an incredible Nigerian artist, photographer and literary writer. Um, he is at Harvard right now. And, you know, through his photography work in particular, you know, he talked about the concept of white saviorism. Actually, he coined it. And he also said that the white savior industrial complex, like it's a system in itself, is not about justice. It's about having a big emotional experience that validates privilege. And I remember when I read that, it really just struck me and I really started to reflect on, could I be part of this complex?

  Hani Sadati: [00:05:24] I saw that you have written a piece and I've taken note of that, the title of that, The Art of Medicine: Are we Training our Students to be White Saviors in Global Health? Um, how this is connected, I mean, to what you already shared right now?

  Ananya Banerjee: [00:05:40] Yeah. I think, you know, someone who's been doing a lot of community engagement work for, you know, over a decade now. And even as a person of color, even working with racialized communities, you know, I really had to step back many times and really question myself. Who is this work really benefiting, given that I am, you know, part of an elite institution like McGill University? And, you know, I started to also reflect on just community members questioning me and my role and my place in the research. And I think when we think of the term white saviorism like it's uncomfortable, and I think it's important to recognize it's not about shaming or blaming white people. That even for us as people of color, we can be white saviors because we work part of institutions that, you know, want to maintain white supremacy and whiteness. Um, and so that's something Teju Cole also, uh, really highlights. And so that really pushed me to, to write a piece, um, to really enable people to just really critically think about their role in community engagement and any type of facilitation work, where they hold a bit more privilege than the communities that they're working with.

  Hani Sadati: [00:07:01] Thank you so much. I want to come to you, Annie, and return to the quote that I read. So what do you make of that quote?

  Annie Chau: [00:07:09] I think, like Ananya was saying, that we can't, um, separate or put on a pedestal this idea of community engaged facilitation without looking at and addressing saviorism in that. As that quote that you so astutely mentioned, right. It's part of this industrial complex, um, so it's part of the ocean that we're swimming in is white supremacy. And as again, you've noticed, like we are two women of color participating in white supremacy in our work. And at the same time, you know, my background is in also a decade of work in gender based justice that I have always been called to, to try to make the world better for many people. And that's a real desire of mine to see positive change in the world. And how do we do that, though, with the, with the structures and the frames that we have and not replicate harm, not amplify the harm that is there? So to look at it critically and to look at it personally is a really important piece of this work that many of us don't center enough.

  Hani Sadati: [00:08:21] Next question I'm going to put to you both on the spot. But before that, I want to ask you if you can give one, you know, a short definition of saviorism from your own perspective, although you already talked about. But just to summarize, and if you want to give a definition, that's to set the tone for the rest of the conversation.

  Annie Chau: [00:08:44] Saviorism is white supremacy guised in the form of helping.

  Ananya Banerjee: [00:08:49] For me, saviorism is parachuting into a community and feeling it is our only responsibility to save them, help them fix the situation, and denying their rights and their full expertise and full capabilities to make things the way they want to. Like, I can't help questioning why are we always called to do the work by our institutions?

  Hani Sadati: [00:09:18] Okay, thanks. And this is the question I was going to ask. Do you see yourself as saviors?

  Annie Chau: [00:09:25] Yeah, yeah, I think this is about being honest. Right? Like I have been that savior. I continue to be that savior. It's problematic. And, um, this is sort of why, you know, earlier I was like, we need to center that really in our practice. There's no escaping it. No, there's no escaping it.

  Ananya Banerjee: [00:09:46] I don't know about you, Annie, but I still like every time I'm working with marginalized communities, I come home to the comforts that the system actually has offered me as a model minority. Being South Asian in Canada. And also just having this feeling of like I did something good. Like, why do I feel good every time I come back working with marginalized communities? I mean, obviously I'm struggling like a better systems and how our structures are designed to intentionally keep them out. And, you know, I'm part of an institution that permitted me to come in at this time, you know, of the world. You know, obviously these systems were not designed for us. Right, Annie? Yeah. Um, at the end of the day, I always benefit from this work. The institutions that I am part of are always going to benefit from this work. Like, I think we have to critically question, like, all this work we've done in community engagement, has it actually really overhauled and changed systems for them? It's not. Things are just continuing to get worse in this world, and we see it being played out right now with the USA funding being cut. And like just seeing how like imperialism and the global north, just has such a strong hold on the global south, for example.

  Hani Sadati: [00:10:58] Yeah. Thank you so much. Ananya. Um, Annie, does it resonate with you? Anything you want to add to that?

  Annie Chau: [00:11:06] I think that it's part of the work. This is the struggle, right? It's part of the work that the current context we're in, where institutions have money and they have these pet projects, or they want to seem this way with this community and all of this stuff. And that's so problematic. And you know what? While they're making other decisions, you know, in terms of their other, um, funding. And at the same time, okay, it is there the funding is there, at an individual local level there can be really transformative pieces. Not for structures and societies or institutions, but possibly for people. And you have to hold on to a little of that. Otherwise you just give up. Right? If we're saying white supremacy is everywhere, it's in these institutions. It's like hundreds of years old. Okay. But we need to, we are still called to do something.

  Ananya Banerjee: [00:12:11] Like, if we leave, the system wins.

  Annie Chau: [00:12:14] Yeah. And like now, now is not the time to leave.

  Hani Sadati: [00:12:19] That's powerful. Thank you. Yeah. I love this self-criticism that you are bringing to this conversation. And, you know, the thinking about the position and positionality and, you know, that's really great and powerful. Where are you now after these experiences that you just shared these stories, where are you now and what did you learn from those situations? Maybe I can start with Annie.

  Annie Chau: [00:12:50] Yeah. Um, as you shared in my bio, I had worked for a decade or so in gender justice, working for a women's organization, a feminist organization. Part of that work that I did at the Women's Center was working with a Mi'kmaq community, and I am not indigenous. And there were many times, while working in that community, where I was told that's not the right way. We don't want to be represented in this way. We don't want to have this, you know. And so a real lesson for me in that, a few lessons, but one of the big takeaways from that was, you know, just showing up and trying to build those relationships and taking the time to and just showing up and saying, where do you need me? And I remember the first few weeks in community, you know, it was Christmas time, December-time. And I was wrapping presents for a, like a toy drive in the community and certainly trying to explain that to the Women's Center. I was supposed to work on gender justice and talk about consent and all these sort of things. No, they just wanted me to wrap presents for their toy drive. Right. You know, I was humbled to know what I could do, and that was where I was needed at that time. And then after some time, we were able to do work, some work on gender justice. But it's not expecting that what you come in with right away is going to happen, is wanted, but to show up and really be present and follow and listen.

  Hani Sadati: [00:14:26] Thank you, Ananya. Yeah. How about you? What, uh, what did you what were your lessons learned? And where are you now?

  Ananya Banerjee: [00:14:37] Yeah. I mean, I just feel like I've been just constantly trying to figure things out. Like, what are the best practices, you know, when it comes to community engagement? And I realize I still don't know what that is, and it truly has to be guided by communities. You know, we are part of these institutions that feel like we are the only ones capable of doing the work. And I still remember, you know, during my PhD, I was asked to travel to India for a huge research project, and they had asked me because they needed someone who can speak Bengali, because that's the region where they were doing a series of qualitative interviews with parents who had children with cleft lip palate and needed surgery. But many of these families lived in rural areas and they didn't have access to surgical care. It was very delayed, actually. So when I went in, I still remember there was one interview I was about to start, and I asked the parent if they had any questions before I started, and he said, out of a billion people in India, could they not have found a qualitative researcher? Why you all the way from Canada? And I just remember that moment thinking, why me? Like why did they spend probably up to $10,000 flying me in, parachuting me in and doing these interviews? And the worst part was when I entered the region, I realized they spoke a different dialect than I did.

  Ananya Banerjee: [00:16:17] So, you know, it's these institutions, right? And I was a naive young PhD woman, you know, wanted to go in. And, you know, it's crazy where it's like I visit India so many times, my family, and this is the first time I entered as a researcher and I realized I do not belong here, as a researcher. They have plenty of qualitative researchers who can do this work on the ground, who have built trust with these communities, like, why would they want to talk to someone who has zero idea of growing up or living in a rural area, or any experience of being denied access to health care? So that was a huge awakening for me. And so I actually left any work related to community for many years that even includes locally, because I realized I really need to check in with myself and realize what the purpose of this work was. What was my purpose?

  Ananya Banerjee: [00:17:14] And so, you know, eventually, now I do a lot of community-engaged work, but I also realize the education system that I was part of at McMaster failed me. They didn't prepare me to do work with communities. Right. They prepared me to harm communities. And so for me now, as an educator that teaches a lot of courses on social justice and equity in public health, medicine, global health, and so forth. I make sure that students really question why they're entering any setting, particularly if they don't have the true lived experiences or the contexts of that place, and ensure they're not entering as a savior. Whether you're doing research, practice, work, health promotion, you know anything. And one thing I always tell them is like, learn about these communities, right? Like, don't just see them as a community that needs to be saved, that needs your help. Like, why do they need your help? Right. Um, but also don't enter these settings without knowing the historical, colonial, the current social political contexts, the languages, the traditions, the strengths that exist. Right? What does it mean to build relationships and trust and so forth. So right now, my biggest social responsibility is sharing my story of how I harmed communities, how I'm, you know, a savior, even to this day, in many ways. Um, and that they're also conscious of this? Yeah.

  Hani Sadati: [00:18:42] I appreciate that. I understand that these are hard conversations, but I appreciate your, you know, honest reflection on what you have done, what you've been, you know, in your relationship to institution that you are working in, we are all working in, Annie?

  Annie Chau: [00:18:59] And I think the struggle is still there for me. I need to own up to that label of being a savior too. I've stopped that work in the community and really called to, in my PhD studies now, is to understand who I am, my own background, my own positionality more. And that was because someone in the community prompted these questions of me, right? And so I feel like in many ways, they saved me in telling me and sharing with me, you know, to really build reconciliation, to really build on that, people need to learn about themselves and their own histories. And again, history is so important, right, to how we situate ourselves, what resources we have with us, all of this stuff that I learned from community. So that's why I embarked on my PhD studies, was upon the kind of encouragement of this community. And I want to say that this community over the six projects and like many years, I, um, have deep gratitude for how they have helped and supported my learning. And, um, I don't think I was able to give the same as they were to me, but I think maybe that's one way that I can own this savior label. Is that actually, yeah, I did get a lot, actually, and I learned a lot about myself, and it's taken me on a different path that is only better for my own understanding of the world and where I am in the world.

  Music

  Sherry Ostapovitch: [00:20:44] Stay tuned for the final installment of Saving or Engaging? Rethinking Community Facilitation, where Hani Sadati speaks to Ananya Banerjee and Annie Chau about how they steer clear of saviorism in their work today. There are some important takeaways for anyone who works with communities, whether you are new to the work or an experienced facilitator.

  Hani Sadati: [00:21:04] Among these reflections, how social responsibility plays a role and then how that can help us finding the path we are walking on in this journey? Anything related to that that would be helpful for this conversation, I would appreciate.

  Ananya Banerjee: [00:21:18] It's a lot of reflection, right? This work, you know, I'm at a stage in my career where, quote unquote, I'm known how to do really equitable community-based research, right? So I'm always called in to do work with communities, but what I want is communities to call on me, if they want me to do this research. And, you know, I'm not telling people to stop, especially those young students out there who want to fly to India or, you know, Kenya, Guatemala for the summer. I'm not stopping you to do that. I'm just asking you to take some time and to really reflect: what is the purpose? And if you are going to embark on an opportunity, talk to the community first and just ask them, how can I best support you this summer? Do you even need me this summer? Because we extract, extract, extract right when we are doing community engagement work. Like, let's not kid ourselves, right? And for me now, when often fellow academics come to me and like, we're doing this community engagement project, we'd love for you to come on as the expert. I sit with them for an hour and I'm like, what is the purpose? Why do you need me? Why isn't the community at these meetings right? Like, I want to make sure they want me. And I'm actually starting to have a lot of hard conversations with community. And, like, actually, it was one project that I was like, everyone's like, you need to apply for it. You're so close with the South Asian communities in Canada, like, let's do this. And you know, I was like, you know what? Okay, so I went to my community partners and I was like, look, you know, there's a whole new grant opportunity for diabetes prevention.

  Ananya Banerjee: [00:23:15] What are your thoughts? Do you want to collaborate together? And I remember the community leader looked at me and was like, we are going to get diabetes no matter what. If you have a project where we can really fight for anti-poverty in this neighborhood, if you can call and make sure the Quebec government starts addressing our health deserts, you know, our built environments, food insecurity, like you name it. He's like, if you're willing to do that, I will partner with you. But if you're coming in here to just do another diabetes prevention program, don't waste your time. I sat there and I was like, all right, we're not moving forward. And I went back and I told the team, I'm like, we're not doing this project because it's a waste of time, the community they will get zero benefit, you know. And I remember one colleague's like, oh my God, but you're perfect we can get like $500,000. I was like, nope, I don't need it. So those are some difficult moments, right? And again, you have to come to a stage of my career where I have that protection. Like, I'm not going to lose my job for not applying for that grant. But again, the concept of saviorism is also about extraction and just growing your recognition as the expert and just getting those publications, those grants out, building your CV and so forth. So just asking everyone out there just really question if you're the right person and if your institution is the right place to do this work in partnership with community.

  Hani Sadati: [00:24:46] Okay, thanks. Annie, any reflection on social responsibility in this context?

  Annie Chau: [00:24:52] Yeah. I think let's maybe reframe that as responsibility to relationships, to all of our relations. And I think if we center our relations more, we can understand what we bring, what we have as unique gifts to all of us, and also what others have to and to come to a point of agreement. Yes, of, you know, consent about projects. And that's how we can do this work better, I think. And yeah, your example, I think is a great one. And to say no when it doesn't work. Step back, step back. It's okay. And yeah, in your introduction, like when do you step in and step back? What does the community want us to do with, you know, stepping in and stepping back?

  Hani Sadati: [00:25:38] Great. Thank you. These are great thoughts and advices as my last question. We have this conversation. People might wonder what further advices you might have for those who want to engage meaningfully in community engagement activities.

  Annie Chau: [00:25:55] I think you have to own that savior shit like you have to like you can't separate that, honestly. Nonprofit, industrial complex, academia like facilitation all around the board that's funded in certain ways, right, is part of a savior complex. You know, this is why we are drawn to this topic, right? Because we're like, we need to just share our stories of these experiences because they are owning up to that shit.

  Ananya Banerjee: [00:26:25] Yeah, absolutely. And we need to stop romanticizing community engagement. Like it's so annoying. Like, even the way people talk about their work with communities, right? And, like, making them already further intellectually in a very vulnerable position. You know, I think what's really important is also is that there are many incredible grassroots organizations at the research practice policy level that are doing incredible work. The difference between them and us, they're doing this work quietly. They don't care for exposure, unlike us. Right. And we don't know if they're even existing. Right. And so often when we are called on as academics from these academic institutions that we have to go and do the work, we don't. We don't even need to build capacity. They can do it. What they need is resources. Like let's transfer our million-dollar funding from social science and humanities research to them and do the work. And I think we need to change the funding structures as well. Right? We can't apply anymore as like the lead, you know, principal investigators and so forth, right. We are always looking to partner with communities to get funding opportunities. Can we be at a stage now where communities can apply on their own? And then they ask if they want an academic to work with them, like we need to reverse the situation. And until we really start to change the funding mechanisms, structures, systems and seeing who are experts. We're just going to continue to just promote, as Teju Cole says, the white savior industrial complex.

  Hani Sadati: [00:28:12] Amazing. Thank you so much. Thank you. I would like to thank again, both of you for your time today. Again, my name is Hani Sadati And I would like to thank Dr. Ananya Tina Banerjee and Annie Chau for your time and sharing your thoughts and experiences with us today.

  Annie Chau: [00:28:32] Thank you.

  Ananya Banerjee: [00:28:33] Thank you.

  Sherry Ostapovitch: [00:28:34] You've just listened to Saving or Engaging? Rethinking Community Facilitation, part of the Pedagogies of Community Engagement Collective special podcast series on the WhyPAR Podcast. Make sure you catch the other two episodes, such as From “Oh shit!” to “Oh shift”, where you can find out how facilitators navigate when things don't quite go according to plan. Or learn about facilitation doulas, smugglers, and translators in the episode Facilitator Archetypes: Navigating Institutions as Community-Engaged Facilitators.

Details

This podcast explores the tension between “saving” and “engaging” when working with communities. Through personal stories and reflective conversations, Ananya Banerjee and Annie Chau discuss the risks of falling into saviourism and highlight the importance of shifting toward facilitation that empowers people and communities. The podcast poses critical questions: Are we acting as saviours or supporters? How can facilitators pass the baton to communities to lead their own change? Listeners will gain practical advice and reflections on redefining roles in community engagement to avoid reproducing the saviour industrial complex and to foster authentic, sustainable collaboration.

Music and production by Sherry Ostapovitch

References and Further Reading

Banerjee, A. T., Bandara, S., Senga, J., González-Domínguez, N., & Pai, M. (2023). Are we training our students to be white saviours in global health?. Lancet (London, England), 402(10401), 520–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(23)01629-X

Cole, T. The White-Saviour Industrial Complex. The Atlantic. March 21, 2012.

https://www. theatlantic.com/international/ archive/2012/03/the-whitesavior-industrialcomplex/254843/

Ostapovitch, S. & Sadati, S.M.H. (2025-11-30) Saving or Engaging? Rethinking Community Facilitation, a conversation with Ananya Banerjee and Annie Chau with Pedagogies of Community Engagement Collective (No 1.) [Audio podcast episode]. In The whyPAR Podcast. https://www.communityfacilitation.ca/resources/facilitator-archetypes

Episode 15: "Creating joyful resistance in communities": On Visual Participatory Methods with Casey Burkholder

Details

This episode features Dr. Casey Burkholder, with podcast host, Dr. Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández. In this conversation, Casey shares about her experience doing participatory visual research with queer and trans communities in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland. She also tells us about her work with teacher candidates in New Brunswick, where she thinks alongside classroom educators about sex education in schools. Casey shares valuable insights about the power of the visual, participatory archiving and dissemination practices, and research ethics when working with queer and trans participants.

Dr. Casey Burkholder is an Associate Professor at the University of New Brunswick, interested in critical teacher-education, and participatory visual research. In choosing a research path at the intersection of resistance&activism, gender, sexuality, DIY media-making, art production and participatory archiving, Casey engages in research for social change through participatory visual approaches to local issues with queer & trans youth, adults, elders, and pre-service teachers. She is the co-founder of the Fredericton Feminist Film Collective, and PI of Pride/Swell+.

Episode 14: “People who live in their neighbourhoods know it better”: On community-engaged and participatory urban planning research with Dr. Aditi Mehta

• Read Transcript

  Citation:

  Gaztambide-Fernandez, Rubén. ““People who live in their neighbourhoods know it better”: On community-engaged and participatory urban planning research with Dr. Aditi Mehta.” Produced by Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández, Qichun Zhang, and Madeleine Ross at The Youth Research Lab. The WhyPAR Podcast. July 6, 2023. Podcast, MP3 audio, https://youthresearchlab.org/whypar

  Note on attribution:

  When citing the ideas and/or when quoting material from this podcast, please attribute the ideas to the speaker(s) and, whenever possible, note the timestamp or the line where the words quoted can be found. We recommend that you draw on the style conventions typically used for “secondary sources,” such as “quoted in” (Chicago Style) or “as cited in” (APA), and that you cite the source as listed above.

  Host: Welcome to The WhyPAR podcast, a project of the Youth Research Lab at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

  Music

  Host: My name is Rubén Gaztambide-Fernandez, and I am the Director of the Youth Research Lab and a Professor at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. 

  In the WhyPAR podcast, youth participatory action research practitioners discuss the ethical dimensions of conducting YPAR.  In this podcast, we explore issues of co-leading YPAR projects, building relationships, power dynamics, and sharing our work together. The Youth Research Lab is located at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, in Toronto or Tkaronto, on the traditional territories of the Huron-Wendat, the Seneca, and most recently being cared for by the Mississaugas of the Credit River.  

  Aditi: “And the idea is that people who live in their neighbourhoods or see their neighbourhoods change know it better than any sort of developer or planner, or someone coming in from the outside…”

  Rubén: Welcome to the YPAR podcast. We are very excited today to host Dr. Aditi Mehta, who is a faculty member here at the University of Toronto. I have been following the work of Dr. Mehta now for a couple of years since she arrived at U of T, and I've been very excited about all the work that she has been doing with communities here in Toronto, and we're excited to be in conversation with her for this episode.

  Dr. Mehta has been an assistant professor here at the University of Toronto in Urban Studies, in the Urban Studies program since 2018. And she's a Community Engaged Learning Faculty Fellow at the University of Toronto Center for Community Partnerships. Dr. Mehta designs courses and research projects in collaboration with community partners for the purpose of social change and through pedagogy she reflects on the process of knowledge production. She was recently awarded the SSHRC Partnership Engagement Grant for her Participatory Action Research course in which undergraduate Urban Studies students at the University of Toronto and youth members of the nonprofit FOCUS Media Arts collaborated to conduct research about the Regent Park neighbourhood’s redevelopment. And Regent Park is a neighbourhood here in Toronto that has been undergoing a fairly major, probably one of the largest redevelopment projects in Toronto, if not, perhaps in Ontario and Canada. And during the pandemic Dr. Mehta, partnered with a low-income nursing home and students in the course paired with an elder resident to develop an oral history project about the lived experiences of the city. Dr. Mehta continued her PhD at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the Department of Urban Studies and Planning where she co-designed a Participatory Action Research Project with youth in Red Hook, Brooklyn, about the politics of local wifi network in their neighborhood. And she was awarded the Institute's highest public service award for co-designing and co-publishing about MIT's first course inside a prison project that I'm excited to hear about and to learn from Dr. Mehahta's experience. So welcome to the YPAR podcast. It is wonderful to have you with us.

  Aditi: Thank you. Thank you so much for having me, and inviting me to speak with you all.

  Rubén: Yeah, it's great to have you. I've been so looking forward to learning more about your background on the work that you've been doing–these really exciting work you've been doing with Regent Park here in Toronto. That's just really really wonderful. 

  Before we start to talk about your current projects, can you tell us and share with our listeners a bit about what brought you to this work? And particularly, where we would love to learn more about sort of what were the ethical commitments and sort of political commitments that you brought to this work, and the sort of drive your interest in this kind of work.

  Aditi: Absolutely. So the way that I got introduced to Participatory Action Research, and YPAR in particular is my previous work before I became an academic, working with cities and affordable housing developers. So in my previous life, I did a lot of work around community engagement and community organizing around redevelopment projects in various cities. Actually, my first job after undergrad was with an affordable housing developer called Telesis Corporation. They're based in Washington, DC. But the project that I was working on was in Inner City, Baltimore, just north of Penn Station. Actually, one of the neighbourhoods is where the Wire was filmed if anyone who's listening knows. So I was working in that neighbourhood, and my role or my first job was really to figure out how to incorporate resident feedback into the redevelopment plan. And it was through that work and meeting community organizers, youth groups, talking to residents about where they see their neighbourhood’s future going and what they would like being incorporated into various redevelopment and master plans that I kind of stumbled across and learned about Participatory Action Research, and it was one of the inspirations that got me back into academia. And then, as a doctoral student, master student, doctoral student, now as a faculty member, in that same vein, I continue to work with different community groups around issues of gentrification, neighbourhood change, affordable housing, and the idea is that people who live in their neighbourhoods or see their neighbourhoods change know it better than any sort of developer or planner, or someone coming in from the outside. And you asked about ethical commitments. So in terms of ethical commitments, I design projects in collaboration with different organizations. And at the beginning of that co-design process, I tried to figure out what it is that I can give back to the organization that can be useful to their work. So, you know, you know, as the different tenets of Participatory Action Research, there's always a co-design, co-analysis, co-production, co-distribution process. So I'm very committed to those, and the idea is that whatever comes out at the end is some sort of workable knowledge, and the partnerships I form are meant to be long-term. So very rarely do I just hop in somewhere and do a project and leave. You've brought up my work in Regent Park. I've been doing it for 4 years now, and we keep iterating. We keep reiterating, and we figure out, “Okay, what is it that the organization needs? Now, what is it that the community needs now?” And keep kind of changing what we're doing at that moment.

  Rubén: Thank you for sharing all of those commitments and all that experience. So one thing that we think about a lot in our work is about how these ethical commitments oftentimes run against the context and the institutions within which we're working. For us, specifically, we think a lot about how doing this work within schools is a bit of a paradox–it's a bit of a contradiction, right? Because you have this institution that's very hierarchical and then you're trying to do this non-hierarchical work inside of them. And I'm really curious what that looks like in the current context of housing and urban development. Because it's a very different context than the one that we usually think about in terms of schools, or even in terms of doing participatory research in the context of nonprofits or community-based contexts. Can you tell us a little bit about what it looks like? What does it look like to do this kind of work? And what are some of the tensions that arise when interacting with another very hierarchical institution which is urban planning and urban health. Can you tell us a little bit about that?

  Aditi: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, there's so many different tensions. So if we just step out of the university for a minute and I think about some of the more participatory planning community engagement redevelopment projects I've worked on. So many issues. So first of all, oftentimes, when outside developers come in, or even if city governments are running the project, there's usually some sort of funding to hire residents. The residents that then get those jobs tend to be the residents that are most active and already out-and-about in the community, and often community organizers. But then what happens is when they're hired by these organizations that are overseeing the project, their role gets a little bit complicated. Because are they an organizer for the community? Are they representing the organization? How can they do both? And it makes sense that they would be the people in the role that the organizations hire because they know the community best, they’re organizers, they know what's going on, they have an institutional history of being there. But then as an individual, that can be really complicated. And not even just as an individual, even when cities or developers are partnering with local community development corporations or other types of community-based organizations, you see these tensions with goals and trying to create some sort of plan for moving forward. And then, if we step into a university, where, then, someone like me is going and partnering with these organizers or community-based organizations and trying to design these projects, you bring in yet another stakeholder, another complication. And you're trying to co-design with many different organizations at the same time, because that one organization or that one person that is your partner is actually wearing many different hats, and has many different goals.

  Rubén: Yeah, these tensions around… I'm also curious, because I know that in your case, another group that is involved are the U of T students that come with you and who are, in essence, participating in this to gain experience, but also to gain credit, and who bring their own expectations. And I wonder what that is like and what sorts of tensions or issues arise for you when you're integrating also university students in the project.

  Aditi: Yeah, absolutely. I'll tell you a little bit about the philosophy of the course design, and then I can answer some of those questions. So we're talking about Regent Park–so Regent Park, historically, is Canada's first all-social housing neighbourhood, and by the 90s, the infrastructure, and the properties in that neighborhood were really not doing well, and the city was having a hard time managing them. So borrowing from models in the United States, the idea was, let's redevelop this neighborhood into a mixed-income neighborhood. So when I moved here in 2018, in my field, this neighbourhood, and this redevelopment project was very, very trendy. Everybody who works in urban health and redevelopment was talking about Regent Park, coming up with indicators to measure effectiveness of the project. So many different engagement projects to get residents involved. And a lot of times when I was reading about Regent Park, or talking to other scholars about it, it was compared to the American context. So then I decided, because it's my field, and I wanted to get up to speed on Canada, I decided to go visit and learn about it more by walking around and just observing for myself. And one of the things I noticed right away that no one spoke about, none of the academic articles talked about, is how heavily immigrant the neighbourhood was, and how it was a predominantly Muslim neighbourhood. And I thought, this is really interesting, it's being compared to the American context. But residents in public housing neighbourhoods in America are a very, very different demographic. And before I moved to Canada I was already working with youth media organizations. So I started doing some research to see if any such organization existed in Regent Park, and I learned about FOCUS Media Arts and Adonis’s organization. And I thought, you know, this would be a really great organization to collaborate with because they are a hyper-local news media organization. They're the ones generating local knowledge about the neighbourhood. I wanted to learn more about the neighbourhood from the resident perspective, and I just felt that all of the coursework or academic readings that students are exposed to about Regent Park kind of missed this immigrant, Muslim, and youth perspective about the redevelopment. So I contacted Adonis and asked him, “Should we do some sort of collaboration, or course together? U of T students would learn about the redevelopment from the perspective of youth and immigrants and really get a different reality than what they're reading about in academic articles and in most Urban Studies classes, especially at U of T, learn about Regent Park. And any of your young constituents or members would then have access to a university course, and also be able to develop their skills and repertoire. What do you think?” And Adonis was on board and thought it was a great idea, and they happened to have a program already called the Diva Girls. And the Diva Girls was a program specifically for young Muslim women that were growing up in the area between the ages of 12 and 17. And this demographic is especially interesting because these young women have been living in a rapidly changing neighbourhood their whole lives. So every single year their neighborhood looks different. Something's going on. They've completely lived through redevelopment. And that's their existence. So the philosophy behind the course was really to bring a new, fresh, hidden perspective, in truth, about the redevelopment project, because very little academic scholarship or media representation was talking about the immigrant, Muslim or youth perspective behind redevelopment.

  Rubén: Another really interesting sort of dimension of your work that comes up as you're describing it is the multi-directionality of how knowledge moves. Right? So not only are you sort of, in a sense, interrupting how knowledge moves in the academy, right? In terms of whose knowledge counts for thinking about urban development, by paying attention to the knowledge that the young–in this case, it’s the young women–are creating about their own experience, and how that knowledge moves, right? And then how U of T students or university students are then acquiring that knowledge, and presumably how they're mobilizing that knowledge. So this really interesting and multi-directionality of how knowledge moves when we're doing participatory research that I think is really fascinating and so interesting. And I'm curious if you can tell us maybe at least just a little bit about previous projects. I'm really curious about the project that you did, working with prisons and perhaps maybe you can contrast a bit how these projects were different from each other, and how particularly this phenomenon of how knowledge moves. What's different? 

  Aditi: So many of the projects that you spoke about from my bio are kind of along a spectrum of participatory education to participatory research. So for example, the prison project, that was more of an educational intervention. So I wouldn't say that we conducted participatory research. The professor that I co-taught the class with and I published an article about the pedagogy of the class. But we weren't necessarily conducting research with participants of the class. It was a little bit different than some of the other projects. But the process of that class, and the way we learned and the way we produce knowledge is very, very similar to all of these various initiatives where you're bringing so many different types of people with their own situated knowledges, and lived experiences together to share and collaborate and come to new understandings about our urban world. 

  Rubén: Yeah. Thank you for sharing that. That is such a great insight. And I really like the distinction that you make, which I think oftentimes gets missed, particularly by newcomers to participatory research, between these tensions on the difference between participatory education versus participatory research. And I'm so glad that you brought that up. And this sort of leads us to another area of interest for us, which is you talk about the way in which the knowledge created is shared amongst the participants, and how that influences and shapes their understanding. One thing that often times comes up, and I know that you've struggled with this as well: Is it the question of, then, how does that knowledge get shared with another audience, right? The audience of academics or the audience of conference attendees who don't necessarily understand the context. And then what do you do right? With the layers of interpretation, and the risk of appropriation, and the misinterpretation? And I'd like to know a little bit about, sort of, how do you make some of those decisions about when and how to share the knowledge that arises from these projects with an outside audience?

  Aditi: Yeah, absolutely. So the first quick answer is that the best way to share knowledge and distribute is to have many different types of products for the various audiences and stakeholders involved. And for me. That's always been a collaborative process with my partners. So personally, given my career and where I am, I I hope to and try to publish about these experiences. Obviously, that's not very important to my partners, and it feels extractive for me to just be doing that. So then we think about: “Okay, what was the goal of this particular project? What's the message we're trying to get out? And who are we trying to get it to?” and design specific interventions. With the Regent Park course and collaboration, often it's an exhibition. And that way we can invite who we want to be there. So the very first iteration of the course, we actually invited the developer, and the president of Daniel's Corporation came to the exhibition, and he saw some of these critical pieces. One team, they did research about the design of the redevelopment, and they noted that the market rate housing and the subsidized housing had different colored doors. And they talked about: “Why do we have different colour doors? Why are we differentiating? Who lives where?” Another team created a Youtube mockumentary. And they discussed how the aquatic center, which was built by the developer as a community benefit, didn't really serve the needs of the people there, or at first it didn't serve the needs, the very Muslim neighbourhood. And Muslim women were like, “Well, I'm not going to go swimming in this public pool by myself.” And so they had to rearrange programming, or the fact that a lot of outsiders were coming into the neighbourhood to use it. And there was no real thought put in at first about how that aquatic center would function to serve needs. And so the developer came, and he saw all of this, and students were really excited about that. And that was the whole idea, to sort of get these messages out to people in power. And when the course ended, many of my students said, “Well, now what? What? So we did that? So what happens now? Is he gonna change anything?” He didn't say anything about it. He didn't answer so… And so then we have to sort of discuss like, “Well changes are incremental. And how do we take the work that you all did, and move it from year to year to year, and sort of keep pushing the message and getting it into the right hands?” And, in the class, I try to build in case studies about sort of city change, and how it happens, and how it takes a long time. So people don't feel defeated after a semester that they did all of this critical work and put it out through the exhibition or the website. But so that's one thing that we always do. We have this exhibition. We have a website where all of the work lives. Most of the students in the classes over the years are pretty active on social media, so they share their work, and they connect with each other in those realms, and it gets out that way. And then, of course, this particular collaboration, because it's with a community media organization, they already have the various outlets to put the projects out there, and so they do a lot of that work as well. But, this particular course again, because the collaboration is with the media organization, a lot of the products are about stories and messages and critical perspectives. It's not like an applied, deliverable, a redevelopment plan, or a policy proposal, or something that you can tangibly see implemented. And I have worked on projects like those, and I feel like sometimes, at the end, those feel a little bit more clear in terms of your impact, whereas this is more about alternative narratives and kind of understanding how alternative narratives can push change, and how change happens slowly, especially in cities and on redevelopment projects incrementally over time. 

  But another PAR project I worked on, which you mentioned in the bio, was with youth in Red Hook, Brooklyn. And that one was a much more applied, tangible outcome. So the story about Red Hook, Brooklyn is that another youth organization, they were building a wifi mesh network so young people in the neighbourhood could have an internet-based radio station to share some of their music creations. A lot of young people in Red Hook produce rap and hip hop, so that was the purpose of the network. And they started building this network shortly before Superstorm Sandy hit the neighbourhood, and then, when Superstorm Sandy hit the neighbourhood, it just so happened that this network was the only functioning communication infrastructure in the neighbourhood. And so, for months, people who live there would walk to the routers where the network had been installed to access wifi. And so the network got a lot of attention from the New York City government, from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, from funders. And all of a sudden the nonprofit accumulated so much money from all of these, you know, different players to expand and build this network, which now has been called a “resilient technology”. So what they did, is they created a formalized youth program called the Red Hook Digital Stewards in which young people living in Red Hook, many who were part of the initial creation of the network, would actually build and install this network and manage it and figure out what functions it could serve in the neighbourhood. So I learned about the network through a New York Times article, and my dissertation was about disaster, communication, and technologies. And I contacted the nonprofit, and I went to learn about their work, and I worked there for a summer, and the Participatory Action Research project that I design in collaboration with the nonprofit and the youth, was to really understand how the network was being used by residents throughout the neighbourhood, and how it could be improved. And so this is very tangible, very clear… it served the organization's goals to make this network stronger, and I should say that I was doing this work in 2016-17. The storm hit in 2012. So this is four or five years later. So the network had existed for a while, and many iterations of digital stewards, which was like a 9-month to one year program, had gone through. So for that PAR project, me, the nonprofit staff, as well as various digital stewards, sat down and actually created a survey to distribute throughout the neighbourhood to understand how the network functioned. And then we had a plan. All of us went out at different times, different events, different places in the neighbourhood, administered the survey. And then once we collected all the data, we co-analyzed it together to make sense of the information. And one of the most interesting findings from that PAR survey, that YPAR survey, was that the funders who fund the network, for them, the main goal of this network is, they saw it as a workforce development skill and tool. The youth that were participating in the program to build it should then be able to get jobs at local tech companies or have a credential that sort of helps them get a job. And when we were serving youth that use the network, and the youth themselves that were working with me and that helped to build it and maintain it. The main thing that they use the network for, it wasn't for education or work, it was for recreation. So they were using the network to go on Youtube, or to go on Facebook. But what funders didn't realize is that that, in itself, was a survival mechanism. So they were going on Facebook to upload videos of where the police were hanging out that day so people would avoid that corner, or they were going on Youtube to upload videos they created about their lived experience in Red Hook. And so it was really interesting finding, so how do you explain to the people that are allowing this project to thrive, that their goals for the project are a little bit misunderstood, and that actually, recreation is a very important part of youth life and survival in neighbourhoods like that. So we created a report based on the findings that the nonprofit could then use to continue fundraising and get different types of funders to fund the network. So that PAR project I feel like, has a much more tangible end and goal, whereas the PAR project in Regent Park, it's very, very long-lived, and, like I said, it's more about stories and putting different stories out there year after year, and addressing specific needs in the moment, year after year.

  Rubén: Wow! Thank you for sharing that. I love to hear these stories of the unexpected ways in which some of these projects end up evolving, and the kind of knowledge they produce, and what they shed light on. It's always to me, also one of the more powerful experiences of doing the work in schools. Also I love this story you shared, which sounds so familiar to me, of ending a project, and then the participants say: “Okay. So now what? What are we going to do now? We're going to do about this?” You know. That was very… I kind of resonated with some of that experience. And then and then using those moments as this sort of pivots to kind of rethink what can happen, right? And I wonder, just as kind of an extension of that, if you can also talk a little bit about your decision-making process when sharing the knowledge with academic audiences when writing articles or going to conferences. Because I know that's something that is always a bit of a tension. And maybe if you can share a little bit of that before we talk about your future projects. 

  Aditi: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I always am very open with who I am working with about my goals. And I always ask for permission, and I always share what I'm writing or presenting. And I even have talked to individuals that I work within the community about being co-authors with me. Obviously they wouldn't be writing the academic article, but it was their knowledge, their connections, their ideas that helped produce outcomes of the project. So really it's just being open and creating these understandings. I haven't gone to the point of having, like an official memorandum of understanding, or something like that. To me, that feels almost against the relationship that you worked so hard to build. It’s very transactional. So, to me, it's like building that deep relationship, and then being very open and honest about, “Hey, this is what I'm doing, there's this conference. I'm gonna talk about this. Can I share the presentation with you? Are you comfortable with this? If I write this article, do you want to co-author with me? Do you care if I share this?” And then again, with YPAR projects, I feel like there's always two partners. there's the youth that I'm working with, and then there's sort of the nonprofit staff. And it's a different process with both sides. In my experience, I feel like… again, I'm very open with the youth. I work with them as well and try to involve them in the same way. But, it's not a priority or of interest to them, which makes perfect sense. But I'm very open about it. And, in fact, when I was working in Red Hook, I did some fundraising at MIT, and I actually was able to bring three of the Red Hook youth to MIT to present our study. So I try really hard to make sure that any limelight or… what am I trying to say… and limelight or any sort of credit of the work is given to the partner. So three of the Red Hook youth, who had never left New York before, they came to Boston, came to MIT, they spoke in two classes and actually had their own event around the project. And that, I designed in collaboration and I ask them, “Would you be interested in doing this? Let's work on it together. Do you want to come?” And these three did, so we did that. But, yeah, I avoid any sort of very transactional documents or agreements, because I rely more on the relationships that I work to build. And then, of course, I share everything that I'm putting out there to make sure people are comfortable with the narrative or the message.

  Rubén: Yeah, I mean, I think oftentimes the tension comes out of the fact that universities have a very transactional view of research. And a very unidirectional and almost flat understanding, even in terms of ethics protocols and even in terms of consent, right? They have this very transactional, ”Here's what I'm doing. Please sign this form…” And that can oftentimes interrupt the very relationships, just like you said, because they're not transactional relationships. They're not flattened, these kinds of bidirectional relationships. They're multi-layered and complex. And so I think that you're right. And even funders sometimes, too. They have these requirements around MOUs and contracts that just really get in the way of their relationships in interesting ways. 

  Can you share a little bit with us about your future projects? What are you imagining? Where is the project in Regent Park going? Do you have new projects unfolding? We're just curious to know where your work is going?

  Aditi: Absolutely. So the work in Regent Park is a long-standing collaboration I hope for many, many years to come. And the idea is that every… I teach the course once a year. So once a year, one semester. And then, whatever happens in that course is part of sort of the knowledge bank for the next year, and everybody keeps building off of each other's work. So a couple of things happened during the pandemic. We missed one year of the course because of the pandemic. And then the Diva Girls program actually got cancelled because of the pandemic. So this year I'm teaching the course, but we tried it a little bit differently, and we're doing it with adult residents rather than youth, just to see how it goes. And it definitely has a completely different texture, feel, learning focus… And I really enjoyed it. But I really miss working with youth. And I think that the course has some room for graduate students. So now the next iteration of the course, and this may be overly ambitious, I'm opening it to graduate students. It'll be upper-year undergrads and graduate students. And I want it to be a mix of adults and youth. So I'm bringing even more different types of people together to do this learning. The first two years before the pandemic, when I taught the course with just youth, many of the youth repeated. So having that repetition was really helpful, and it also allowed the young people to take ownership of the space in the class. I really liked that, and I'm hoping that will happen again with some of the adults in the class around Regent Park. And so I also like to bring students that took the course before to be course assistants, or TAs, or research assistants. Having their repetition over the years, really creates like this long-standing project that keeps building on itself. In terms of the actual research and ideas that are coming from the collaboration. So, the first iteration of the course, as I told you when I went to Regent Park, I was really struck by the Muslim immigrant population, so I wanted the class to focus on that, but the class did not want to focus on that. The class really wanted to focus on the rapid change, the redevelopment of the built environment. So the first iteration of the course really focused on memorialization of important places in the neighbourhood that were being constantly destroyed and taken for granted, because developers weren't necessarily talking to youth enough. Then the second iteration of the course focused more on the Muslim youth experience. So what does it mean to be Muslim in Regent Park? And what does it mean to be Muslim in Toronto? And how should faith be incorporated into planning processes? Because planning tends to be a very secular field. But your religion and your faith definitely affects the way you navigate the built environment. And then this third iteration of the course is focusing more on the history of the neighbourhood. And that idea came from the fact that we just went through a pandemic. And this is an area that has had a long history of disease, as many public housing, lower income areas and cities do. But again, interestingly enough, people, while we focus on the history of the neighbourhood, people didn't quite take to the history of disease and public health as much as they took to the history of immigration and the cultural changes throughout the neighbourhood. So all of that to say, there's a lot to write and put out there that's come from these various iterations of the class. And now the next iteration, next year I'll have to talk more to Adonis about what he sees makes sense. I think that really focusing again on the multiculturalism in Regent Park, and the layers of immigration has stayed strong throughout the four years. And so, to me, that makes sense to keep going with that. But every year we change it a bit, based on what's going on. Currently, in current events: What makes sense for the organization? Who the participants are?

  Rubén: Yeah. Great. It's so interesting to hear Adonis's name, because he's such a figure, not just in Regent Park, but even here in University of Toronto on Media and Education. But the last question: you talked about integrating graduate students and the new iterations. And a large portion of our audience for the podcast are graduate students, students who are thinking about doing participatory research and interested in that, and the podcast oftentimes gets taken up by courses to sort of where people are learning. And I'm wondering if, just to sort of close, what kind of advice would you give to someone, whether it be a graduate student, or a faculty member, or even a community member who's thinking about doing participatory research or participatory education. What would be sort of some initial advice that you would give, and words of wisdom from your experience.

  Aditi: Yeah, that's a really great question. I think, being in a university or being a graduate student, you're very socialized to always have a plan. So we have syllabi. We have curriculum. We have a research proposal. But if you're going to embark on Participatory Action Research, or Participatory Education, you have to not be too attached to your plan. And you have to… it's always good to have a plan. So you have a roadmap. But be open to going off the roadmap at any point. And be open to improvising and improvisation at any point. Because I think that's really what makes these projects successful. And then also constantly be questioning your own assumptions about how the world works and about social realities. I think for me, these collaborations always teach me something new, or make me realize that I wasn't seeing something in its full picture. And I think it's good, after you have a really intense collaborative meeting, or if you've been working on the project for a few weeks, to kind of step back and think about: How has my thinking changed from this? So to do a reflection on your own. But even, in a lot of these projects, people build in reflection as a group, but I think, even before you get to the group to do that process, think about it for yourself, and think about how it's changed you, and how you're thinking. And also be prepared to have things not work out. Participatory projects are really difficult. Things fall through the crack all the time. People who are involved have so many different priorities and life circumstances. So you might have to try over and over again until something feels like, “Oh, yeah, this really, really gelled and made sense.”

  Rubén: Which is often why I try to discourage doctoral students from embarking. Because, like you said, that socialization is, and the expectations are that you're going to have a plan that's going to unfold, and you're going to finish. And you know, like you said, this kind of work is so unpredictable, and you have to be so flexible that sometimes there's that clashing of expectations, of programmatic expectations, and their reality of doing the work. So thank you. Thank you for doing that. And thank you so much for sharing all of this experience and all of these insights. I think our listeners are gonna really enjoy and learn a lot from, just as I have, from listening to that, and sharing all of that. Thank you for joining us in the podcast and participating in this, and I'm really looking forward to continuing to learn from you and learn from your projects.

  Host: Thank you for joining us for our conversation with Dr. Aditi Mehta from the University of Toronto. I hope you enjoyed the conversation as much as I enjoyed having it with her and getting to know her work. I was fascinated by the similarities and differences in how working with young people in different contexts shapes their work, whether it is in the context of housing, in the context of schools, in the context of other nonprofit sectors. I thought Dr. Mehta had some really wonderful ways of helping us think about the power dynamics and how these power dynamics shift as our work changes context, different settings, different institutional constraints. I look forward to listening more and following the work of Dr. Mehta, and I hope that you have learned something from our conversation. And we look forward to hearing from you, and getting your feedback and your comments. And please don’t hesitate to reach out to us if you would like to participate in the WhyPAR podcast, or if you have ideas about guests or projects that you would like to see featured in our podcast. Thanks again for joining us!

Details

This episode features Dr. Aditi Mehta, Assistant Professor of Urban Studies at the University of Toronto, and podcast host Dr. Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández, Professor and Director of the Youth Research Lab here at OISE. Drawing on her diverse experiences conducting PAR neighbourhoods in the USA and Canada, Dr. Mehta reflects on the politics of knowledge production and dissemination within contexts of urban community development and public health. Together, they discuss the dynamics of community collaboration and partnerships and the important distinction between participatory research and education.

Dr. Aditi Mehta is an Assistant Professor of Urban Studies at the University of Toronto and was a community-engaged learning faculty fellow at the Centre for Community Partnerships. She completed her PhD at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in the Department of Urban Studies and Planning, and was awarded the department’s most outstanding dissertation prize for her investigation of the politics of community media in post-disaster cities. Her research and pedagogy consider environmental justice, community development, technology, and how knowledge infrastructures influence policy. She was recently awarded the Social Science and Humanities Research Council Partnership Engagement Grant for her participatory action research course in which UofT students and youth living in Toronto's Regent Park neighbourhood collaborated to research local experiences of redevelopment and the COVID-19 pandemic.

This episode was hosted and directed by Ruben Gaztambide-Fernandez, produced by Qichun Zhang, and supported by Youth Research Lab assistant Madeleine Ross.

REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING

UofT and Regent Park PAR course:

Course site: FOCUS Media and Arts and UofT Participatory Action Research
U of T News: U of T and Regent Park teens team up to bust stereotypes, tell stories of a changing neighbourhood
Muslims in Canada Archives (MiCA) Community Collaborations Learning Series: Youth, Faith, & Gentrification: Multimedia Exploration into Regent Park

YPAR in Red Hook, Brooklyn:

https://aditimehta.info/portfoliocpt/participatory-action-research-with-the-red-hook-initiative/

Prison Education course:

MIT News: https://news.mit.edu/2016/prison-ideal-classroom-new-urban-studies-course-0531

Publication on Inside-Out Prison education pedagogy: https://journals-sagepub-com.myaccess.library.utoronto.ca/doi/10.1177/0739456X17734048

Instructor Insights on course: Urban Sociology in Theory and Practice

Episode 13: “There’s no one way to do this”: On youth-adult partnerships and embracing complexity, a conversation with Sharif Mahdy, Stoney McCart, Kwaku Agyemang, and Maddy Ross

• Read Transcript

  Citation:

  Ross, Madeleine. ““There’s no one way to do this”: On youth-adult partnerships and embracing complexity, a conversation with Sharif Mahdy, Stoney McCart, Kwaku Agyemang, and Maddy Ross”. Produced by Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández and Qichun Zhang at The Youth Research Lab. The WhyPAR Podcast. May 12, 2023. Podcast, MP3 audio, https://youthresearchlab.org/whypar

  Note on attribution:

  When citing the ideas and/or when quoting material from this podcast, please attribute the ideas to the speaker(s) and, whenever possible, note the timestamp or the line where the words quoted can be found. We recommend that you draw on the style conventions typically used for “secondary sources,” such as “quoted in” (Chicago Style) or “as cited in” (APA), and that you cite the source as listed above.

  Host: Welcome to The WhyPAR podcast, a project of the Youth Research Lab at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

  Music

  Host: In the WhyPAR podcast, youth participatory action research practitioners discuss the ethical dimensions of conducting YPAR.  In our podcast, we explore issues of co-leading YPAR projects, building relationships, power dynamics, and sharing our work together. The Youth Research Lab is located at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, in Toronto or Tkaronto, on the traditional territories of the Huron-Wendat, the Seneca, and most recently being cared for by the Mississaugas of the Credit River.  

  Sharif: There’s a lot of appreciation for the human reaction to complexity in the work that we do... The work with young people is usually less focused on managing that, and more focused on managing some of the, you know, some of the trauma that can emerge from divulging what’s really going on. But with adults it’s about managing them through the process.

  Host: Welcome everyone! My name is Maddy Ross, and I’m an OISE alum and former graduate assistant at the Youth Research Lab. Today’s episode features part of a conversation I had with Sharif Mahdy, Stoney McCart, and Kwaku Agyemang, who joined me from the Students Commission of Canada. In some ways this conversation felt like a full circle moment for me, because it was the Students Commission that first introduced me to YPAR back when I was a teenager and involved in some of their projects. 

  In this episode, we talk about conditions for meaningful youth engagement, disrupting adult structures, and the dynamics of doing research through intergenerational partnerships. 

  This conversation was recorded over Zoom.

  And with that, let’s jump in!

  Maddy Ross: Why don't we start by having you all introduce yourselves.

  Kwaku Agyemang: Hey my name is Kwaku, Kwaku Agyemang. Yes, I'll start with my role. So I'm the Program Delivery Manager at the Students Commission of Canada and the fun work I get to do is around, you know, supporting and overseeing our national programming, you know, contributing to the vision of our youth centre space at the 23 Isabella location here and just really pushing forward to how we can engage young people across the country from coast to coast to play an active role and put their ideas into action on the change they wanted to see and addressing issues that impact them the most.

  Stoney McCart: And, uh, hi, I'm Stoney McCart. I've been with the Students Commission and the Center of Excellence since their founding. I'm currently doing work with them supporting throughout the organization, and assisting in the development of youth voice and turning it into research projects, and also into programming. So, turning the programming into research and the research into programming.

  Sharif Mahdy: Hi everyone, my name is Sharif Mahdy, and I use he/him and il/ils pronouns and I am privileged to be the Executive Director of the Students Commission of Canada and the Centre of Excellence for Youth Engagement. And primarily my role is focused on supporting our organization to achieve our 10-year strategy, which is really focused on working with others working purposely with others to ensure that young people's voices are heard and valued, and to support organizations across the country in turning knowledge into action, and action into knowledge. We're in year five of the strategy and it's been a very interesting kind of, interesting experience so far and we're really looking forward to the next five years.

  Maddy Ross: Fantastic. So, tell me a little bit about the work that you do and how this work began as an organization.

  Sharif Mahdy: I think that Kwaku is probably the best person to do the origin story because he's been doing it so many times. So I'm going to throw it over to Kwaku to share a little bit about the origin story, because you need to understand the origin story in order to understand what we do.

  Kwaku Agyemang: Thank you Sharif. For where do I begin with this amazing origin story we have? So, the Students Commission was built out of Tiny Giant magazine. And so we'll start there, so Tiny Giant magazine was an amazing magazine, you know, led by Stoney, who, you know, really rallied high school students from across the country to submit, every province of territory submitted, you know, submissions to this magazine and there'd be a monthly release. So you know, Tiny Giant magazine started that move in terms of spreading, you know, youth voice across the country on, you know, important issues, and there was a conference that, you know, took place, that was organized by some educators in Ottawa that was looking to bring together youth from every province and territory to engage on, you know, important conversations and what happened was the main organizer of the conference got cold feet and didn't, you know, really show up or just ran away - I heard that they hid in a closet somewhere - they couldn't be found, in a nutshell. And you know, strong leaders and adults rallied together to really carry forward the conversation, knowing that young people were traveling on planes, nervous and anxious to this, you know, new place and really wanted to respect their participation and rally them together, to, you know, lead a conference that would, you know, generate important recommendations for decision makers. Important stuff happened at that conference. The bilingual, francophone youth, you know, youth-adult partnership rallied together to ensure seamless translation, to ensure that youth were supported, to make sure that facilitation took place in the right way. And from that, the conference generated 30 recommendations? 

  Stoney McCart: It’s 250…

  Kwaku Agyemang: That's the first time I've heard that. Why did I think 30? 250 recommendations that was delivered to the Prime Minister and one of the recommendations was to commission an organization to act on behalf of youth in Canada to put their ideas into action. And that was the Students Commission of Canada. And, so that's how we came about. We've been doing conferences every year, and in 2001 we were named the Centre of Excellence for Youth Engagement. And we've been given the lease to, you know, keep doing this amazing work that we enjoy doing and really providing that space for young people to feel like they have their voice heard.

  Stoney McCart: I can say, I always love hearing Kwaku tell the story because it's the importance of story in the work that we do in terms of passing on the story and where we emphasize, what things we emphasize in a story for which audiences, and I think just to, just to you know distill it down too. It was really important, as an observer there, I think what we took most out of it was that clash potentially of the formal idea of something that's formally organized as a conference and happens in a very kind of adult way, with what happens when you just really unleash the energy and the ideas and the voice of 365 young people who were there who got to share without an imposed agenda on them, because the organizer had disappeared as Kwaku said. And out of that came a certain magic, the word that was used with magic, and we've been capturing that magic ever since, when we let go of some of the expectations that we as adults have when we come to bring young people together and to listen to them accurately.

  Sharif Mahdy: I think the other part of the story that's really important, especially for the discussion we're having today is, you know, Kwaku alluded to the Tiny Giant magazine, Teen Generation, TG Mag, and you know, the roots of that magazine go back to the early 1940s. So, in the 1940s, pulling a magazine together, getting that printed, circulated across the country in wartime was a pretty innovative feat. But we've adapted and evolved based on what's needed. The magazine is no longer being published in, you know, as a formal magazine that is circulated across the country, but the ideas, the cycle of how an article comes together are the roots of all of our methods and processes. Right, so that thread of youth voice and then adapting to the times in terms of the media and how young people receive messages is part of the core of who we are. And I think it's an important kind of piece to remember when thinking about engaging youth in decision-making, policy making, and research. Like which media are going to be effective at reaching and engaging and amplifying those various messages. The second kind of piece from the origin story that really stands out for me, but also really highlights when participatory action research is most effective, is when things occur in an intergenerational way. So, you know, throughout our history, going back to the 1940s, whenever partnerships between youth and adults have been relatively strong, we have been healthy or have been able to achieve a lot of change. Whenever those partnerships shift, so whenever, you know, the youth grow up as adults and still try to be youth, or whenever there's youth, there's more youth than adults or whenever that balance is off, is when we start to see dips in our organizational effectiveness and also in our innovation. So, one of the other kind of key messages that we would have is that working in intergenerational partnership is a really effective way to engage in participatory action research. And it's not about hiring a bunch of students and the academics are here, the students are here, to this, this wall, this invisible wall. It's about working with each other, getting messy together, you know, like going through the process of every step of the research methodology, working through that together is what we're talking about. We're not talking about, you know, "I hire students, they're in a room, I'm in a room, they do their thing when I do my thing," it's about being in the same space together, gather the voice, and make the change happen.

  Maddy Ross: I'm curious how you approach this work through youth-adult partnerships because, obviously there are wider power dynamics that impact the way young people and adults traditionally communicate and work together. Are there guiding values that inform this work, that emerged from that initial conference? And how do those continue to shape the work that you do?

  Sharif Mahdy: It's interesting because I have been, you know, the pandemic's been an interesting time to catch up on some reading. And you know I had the opportunity to go through some of our archives and notice that throughout our history, the words, even actually Stoney, I read a few of our magazine articles and these words did pop up in the magazine as well, but the words like "communicate" "understand" "respect" "listen"- those words are kind of also part of the origin story, and at some point - and we can't quite pinpoint when this happened in our history - the words got organized in such a way that it was Respect, Listen, Understand, Communicate, which ended up becoming our core values and our core processes. And I remember when I was thinking about joining the Students Commission of Canada like 13 years ago, I remember like getting a document with these pillars like, and I just remember being like.  Holy shit, like this is intense. Like this is really magical. And, for me, so I mean if it starts with respect, respect for young people and their capacity to change the world respect for all people and the unique gifts they carry within. And what really struck me about respect was that it's not earned, its granted. You know, we grant respect right away, we don't make you go through a process of earning it, or you know, you have to prove yourself. The respect is granted immediately, and I think that's very different from how a lot of our institutions work in terms of respect. You have to prove yourself, you have to get your A in a course, you have to publish so many articles, you know, respect is granted right away and it's all about looking at the diverse, respecting the diverse ways in which different people interact and exist. And then you know, when you have respect as your foundation, you can listen. And listening is not just about sound, it's about listening to actions, to silences, to deeds, to written word, like it's about really taking in all the different ways in which we share and try to express ourselves. And then, when you listen, you can put yourselves in the shoes of others, which is understand. You can really ground yourself in seeing the world from a different perspective, you can disagree without being disagreeable. You can develop empathy for another cause that might be so different than your own. And with those three pillars in place, the obstacles tend to fall away, and that's when you can communicate the change and action you want to see in the world. And so these pillars are not only are our core values, but they're also our core underpinning process for how we do all of our programs and research activities. 

  Stoney McCart: Yeah, to build on that, we had a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council grant on youth-adult partnerships, so we had a group of academics who were interested in researching and publishing on this. And we had a group of organizations who had young people who were also interested in it. And we work together, for, I think it was two or three years, and in some of the partnerships, we had an academic paired with an organization and with a young person. And some of the partnerships worked really well, and some of them didn't. And we were looking in particular to one academic who had been very successful, so as we were doing our research and we were doing our research, we looked at this one academic where the partnership was working really well, young person was participating fully and equally, had value and didn't hold back in the sessions, was doing what Sharif just described. And we wanted to probe that a little further and find out why. And when we went to that academic, we were looking at the differences and we asked why and how this academic had hired this young person and brought them in. And one of the key questions we asked is, did you hire - because this academic had hired differently than the others - and we asked this academic, why, and was different and whether this was how they always hired? And their response was an instant, "Oh no, oh no, I would never hire a student the same way as I hired a student for this project." And I asked, I said, “Well why? Why did you hire differently?” And the academic's response was, "I've never thought about it before, but because I was working with you and the Students Commission, I knew I needed to hire differently and I needed to hire a different type of young person." And it was really insightful for all of them then to look at and we had similar projects in which the power dynamics that are implicit in the academic-student relationship are a barrier to the kind of youth engagement that we practice and the kind of youth participatory action research that we do there. And so I think for academics who are really interested in this kind of work, they actually really need to look at and acknowledge in some ways, some of the - and we've had this conversation with our academics - some of the necessary barriers that are there in the student-academic credit power relationship, that if unacknowledged, are something that will affect the way you do youth participatory action research in your work. 

  Sharif Mahdy: I think also there’s, young people pick up on this regardless of who they are, their backgrounds, their experiences. Young people can pretty quickly pick up YPAR. They don't need to be trained extensively. They can have one hour training that gathers 500 voices, you know, in like a week and do so in a very engaging way. I think where the efforts, and I think sometimes because respect isn't granted in a lot of spaces, it's needed to be earned, there's an assumption that these young people have to be taught how to gather voice and gather research, etc. But the onus actually needs to shift to the adults to unlearn some of the practices that they've learned over time. I just read an article about how the myth of the lazy millennial - and the millennials are not young people anymore, so I'm just being clear – but at the time, the myth of the lazy millennial has been debunked. You know, like there was like in the employment participation rates, millennials were the lowest teen, whenever they were teenagers, they were the lowest participants in employment compared to previous generations. And now Gen Z is returning back to pre-millennial levels in terms of teen participation in the workforce. Okay. And there was this myth that it was like, you know, the lazy millennial. Like you know, entitled whatever. But it just so happened that the millennials, at the time that they were teens, were serious, like major recessions. Like they were completely blocked out of job positions because other generations were competing for the jobs, right? You know, and this is all clear like 20 years later, with lots of employment data. My point about this particular story is that there's so many assumptions and perceptions that adults have of young people that our entire discourse about an entire generation was that they were lazy and entitled, when in fact there were so many structural and systemic factors at play that were preventing a large group of people from being in, employed, right? So, going back to the point of like young people can pick up on this stuff pretty fast, adults actually need a lot of training. And our first activity in the adult-ally training is to imagine them going back to being 15 years old. And what it was like to be 15, and to put themselves in their shoes. And they get very uncomfortable when we start to ask these questions, but it's necessary to get back to that third pillar of "understand" in order to debunk some of the - and I don't blame individuals for these assumptions, like this is on a societal level that these assumptions exist, especially in North America - to debunk some of the myths and assumptions that people have about young people. And I think that that, you know, that that training component needs to flip the script, like, you can actually spend maybe like one to two hours with a young person on YPAR, and they pick it up like this. But we've had to like years sometimes to get some of our adult partners on board with YPAR, and they're still like unlearning, right? And I don't want to also put the onus on adult individuals. Again, it's like systems that they're part of that are like reinforcing these messages about what's professional and what's not, and what's what's right and what's not, and what's research and what's not. So, you know, we're up against, we're going up hill on this, and a lot of factors, but the point I'm trying to make here is really that we need to kind of focus our energy on unlearning amongst adult generations.

  Maddy Ross: I want to come back to something you said earlier about Respect, Listen, Understand, Communicate being your process, really the essence of the way you work. And then Stoney, you were talking about the tensions sometimes working with academic researchers, bringing young people into these settings, or bringing researchers into young people's settings. I'm curious how those tensions are worked out, and especially because these Four Pillars, they generate a very emergent process, which is often also in tension with the way research is done. And so how do you navigate that, and what does that look like while these adults are unlearning?

  Sharif Mahdy: Sometimes we put them in a different room for a few moments. And sometimes we go, I mean, I don't want to sound like this be all end all expert either, because there are many moments in our processes, where each of us have moments. I think we as humans, we resist complexity, right? Like we don't like complexity, even though the world is complex. And even if intellectually we know that the world is complex, in those moments of absolute complexity, which is usually our processes, it's very uncomfortable. And so, I mean, that's why our model is also grounded in Head, Heart, Feet, and Spirit, you know? Making sure people feel like it's a safe space to learn, to feel what they're feeling, to like engage in really productive behaviour and to connect. And sometimes we have Head Heart Feet Spirit moments where we stop and label a moment, and just say, "Hey, this is messy right now, like sit in the mess, trust the process". And some of the, you know, some of the adults who really can't trust the process get a one-on-one talk, right? But there's a lot of, there's a lot of appreciation for the human reaction to complexity in the work that we do. Young people seem to be more attuned to it and seem to be more comfortable with complexity, and I think as they get older, they go through systems and processes that make them uncomfortable with the complexity. But young people seem to like understand their relationships of systems much better than you know, than you know, other generations. So the work with young people is usually less focused on managing that and more focused on managing some of the you know, some of the trauma that can emerge from divulging what's really going on, right? Like that's usually where our focus is with young people, but with adults, it's about you know, managing them through the process. And in a lot of times, you know, one of the big learnings for me was, when I first joined, all my attention to the young people. And anytime an adult had a reaction, I was like, they're grown up, they're fully formed, they should, like, they're done. You know and like over my time with the stu, like I don't have time for that. And then as I, you know as I continued in the role, I was like wait a second, every person is just a, you know, there's a part of them that's still a 12-year-old child that needs to be nurtured and supported as well. And so, that is also part of the process. 

  Stoney McCart: Kwaku, how do you manage us?

  Kwaku Agyemang:  It's so funny cause the adults are the hardest to manage, I feel. It's weird, it's weird, I just feel like…I'm gonna be a little bit more loose. You know, adults still have feelings, and egos. So when it comes to being like, "Hey just stop talking" or "talk less" you know, you have to take it from a Four Pillar approach too. I will say, I think it's, there's a lot of gifts associated - so this is the pillar of respect - there's a lot of gifts associated with you know adults in terms of like wisdom and experience that comes out in the space. There's the need to share that. But then often times that can like, depending on the context of the conversation, how that comes off sometimes can sort of take away from the safe space, just because, like, especially if you're dealing with vulnerable youth populations, you never really know which young person has a difficult experience at home, and within their community that, you know, how an adult conducts themselves takes up space, takes up too much space, or even sometimes not taking enough space. You know, might be a trigger, or you know, might allow them to detach from the space, so it's really important to be mindful of trying to you know, give attention to the adults, so you know, make sure that you know their participation in the space is intentional, meaningful. But also just so that they're not excluded. I think it's always like, it's always like, it's the youth only, let's take the adults outside of space. Sometimes you know, the support of adults can be helpful. There are times, where it could be a challenge. But I think where you find a meaningful middle ground to make it make sense, can, can really add value to the space. But there are times where you definitely have to, like Sharif said, have to ask them to leave the space.

  Stoney McCart: I think you hear a theme that there's no there's no one way to do this, that it's always an ongoing assessment and adjustment. The experiential part is really important because as Kwaku alluded to, there are situations where adults think that they're doing the right thing by getting up and leaving or by letting young people be completely alone. And we've had young people tell us that that feels like abandonment, that feels like they're not interested in listening to us. But there'll be moments when that's not true. So, it's actually this level playing field, like the striving to recognize that everybody is an equal player in what you're doing. Has an equal stake and understands the purpose, is equally there for some common thing, and they're working out the best way to work with each other, which I think both Kwaku and Sharif talked about this notion of working with. And it's not that you're, you know, you're working, the adults have to truly truly believe and authentically work this way in terms of, their project would, their research would not be as good without the partners, their youth partners. They have to treat their youth partners exactly the way they would treat any other stakeholder who's absolutely necessary to the successful execution of the project. And they're not there, they're not there to help the young people do YPAR, and nor are the young people there to have, like, this is a, together we'll do a better job.

  Sharif Mahdy: And I think that's that's I mean, I think you know I think there's in research and policy making and you know, one of our biggest struggles communicating the voice into action is people want a toolkit after an event, or like they want, they want a roadmap of exactly how to like, how to fix systems based on what people have said, without actually understanding that the process of engaging youth in the policy making, in the research is what will achieve your outcome. Like the process is the outcome, right? And you can't just, you take a curriculum, and follow it line by line, because you need, the best ways of engaging in YPAR and engaging in meaningful youth engagement are all about adapting and being flexible while staying rooted to a really core goal, right? So often in our YPAR processes, I think of the work we did with a, you know, a rural community, we had a very clear focus around wanting to know what, what the issues were that were occurring in the community. And, how we got there was completely different than how we planned, but resulted in a much richer kind of story around the need for better LGBTQ2S+ inclusion, and the need for improved mental health resources and services, like that was a key finding from the process. But if we had stuck to the formal methodology of it, it was very possible, actually, it's not like, it's certain that we would not have achieved the outcomes that we achieved. So also making sure that people, training people on where to be adaptable and where to bend is also a bit of an art, more than a science. And I think it's something that you know, it's not intuitive. Certainly there are folks who really pick it up easily, and it is intuitive for them, but it's something that's really hard to quantify and train. I think people are looking for a simple solution to complexity all the time, and you know, our answer is, you have to embrace the unknown unknown. 

  Maddy Ross: Thank you for joining us on this episode of the WhyPAR Podcast. In this conversation, Sharif, Stoney, and Kwaku discussed possibilities that arise when adults question their social authority and collaborate with young people as inherently capable knowers and partners in research. We talked about the Four Pillars as both values and a research process, and why embracing complexity is a condition for turning youth knowledge into action. I hope you enjoyed this episode and hold onto the reminder that when YPAR feels most difficult and overwhelming, you’re probably on the cusp of something important. With this in mind, stay tuned for our next episode, and see you then!t goes here

Details

This episode features Sharif Mahdy, Stoney McCart, Kwaku Agyemang from the Students Commission of Canada (SCC) and podcast host Maddy Ross. In this conversation, they reflect on how the SCC’s origins at a national youth conference in 1991 helped to shape four core values, referred to as the Four Pillars, as a process for youth engagement. Drawing on these Four Pillars - Respect, Listen, Understand and Communicate™️ - as a research framework, they discuss the dynamics of producing knowledge through youth-adult partnerships and why addressing adult positionalities is a critical dimension of conducting YPAR.

 The Students Commission of Canada is a national charitable intergenerational organization that purposely works with others to ensure that young people’s voices are heard and valued so that their ideas for improving themselves, their peers and their communities can be put into action. In 2000, the SCC was named the lead organization for the Centre of Excellence for Youth Engagement (CEYE): a network of youth, youth-serving organizations, academics and policy-makers focused on identifying and sharing best practices on meaningful youth engagement and the impact of youth engagement initiatives.

Sharif Mahdy is the Executive Director of the Students Commission of Canada. He has worked in the youth sector for over two decades, and has been with the SCC since 2010. Sharif has an Honours Bachelor of Health Sciences from the University of Western Ontario and a Master of Arts in Leadership from Royal Roads University. Sharif volunteers for several non-profit Boards and currently serves as the Chair of the National Alliance for Children and Youth (NACY): a national charitable organization that brings organizations together in a collaborative network dedicated to enhancing the well-being of children and youth in Canada. Sharif also serves as volunteer Board member for Child Development Institute (CDI): a children’s mental health agency in Toronto, the Catalysts’ Circle and Mentor Canada.

Stoney McCart is a co-founder of the Students Commission of Canada and Director, Program Development. As publisher of Tiny Giant magazine, the precursor to the SCC, she converted an adult-written youth magazine into a youth-directed weekly publication with an editorial board of 100 students from across Canada, reaching every high school in the country. As the Executive Director of the SCC from 1992 to 2017, Stoney supported youth across Canada to turn their ideas into action. In 2000, Stoney helped establish the Centre of Excellence for Youth Engagement to develop an evidence base for youth-driven work in Canada.

Kwaku Agyemang is the Manager of Client Relationships and External Communications at the Students Commission of Canada, where he facilitates youth engagement in policy and decision-making through national programming. He has a passion for creative strategy, amplifying youth voice, and mentoring his peers. Kwaku has a degree in Media Production from Toronto Metropolitan University. You can find him @KwakuOnAir

References and further reading

Students Commission of Canada: https://www.studentscommission.ca/en
SCC Archives: https://www.studentscommission.ca/en/resources/archives
Youth Who Thrive: https://www.youthwhothrive.ca/

Episode 12:“Not everything can be fully participatory, right?”: On "True" PAR, A Conversation between Aurora Santiago-Ortiz and Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández

• Read Transcript

  Citation:

  Gaztambide-Fernández, Rubén. “Not everything can be fully participatory, right?”: On "True" PAR, A Conversation between Aurora Santiago-Ortiz and Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández. Produced by Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández and Naima Raza at The Youth Research Lab. The WhyPAR Podcast. August 15, 2022. Podcast, MP3 audio, https://youthresearchlab.org/whypar

  Note on attribution:

  When citing the ideas and/or when quoting material from this podcast, please attribute the ideas to the speaker(s) and, whenever possible, note the timestamp or the line where the words quoted can be found. We recommend that you draw on the style conventions typically used for “secondary sources,” such as “quoted in” (Chicago Style) or “as cited in” (APA), and that you cite the source as listed above.

  Rubén: Welcome to The WhyPAR podcast, a project of the Youth Research Lab at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. 

  In the WhyPAR podcast, youth participatory action research practitioners discuss the ethical dimensions of conducting YPAR.  In our podcast, we explore issues of co-leading YPAR projects, building relationships, power dynamics, and sharing our work together. The Youth Research Lab is located at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, in Toronto or Tkaronto, on the traditional territories of the Huron-Wendat, the Seneca, and most recently being cared for by the Mississaugas of the Credit River.  

  Aurora: You know, I think being really honest, like not everything, can be fully participatory, right. And if we think about it that way, and we kinda let that go, I think there's a lot less pressure.

  Rubén:  My name is Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández, and I am the Director of the Youth Research Lab, and a Professor at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

  On today’s episode, we're going to be talking to Dr. Aurora Santiago-Ortiz. Dr. Santiago Ortiz is a social justice education scholar, and currently the Lyman T. Johnson Postdoctoral fellow at the University of Kentucky. Her research focuses on anti-racist feminisms, anticolonial perspectives and participatory action research. And she is the co-founder or one of the co-founders and a member of the community organization Colectivo Casco Urbano de Cayey. And that's the project that we will be talking about today, primarily, and we are very excited and we congratulate her on her appointment at the University of Wisconsin, this coming fall. She will be joining the University of Wisconsin-Madison as an Assistant Professor of Gender and Women Studies, and Chicano/Latinx studies. So congratulations, first of all, that's really wonderful news.

  Aurora: Thank you so much Rubén, thank you for having me here. I'm very excited to, to talk about some of the work that I've been doing and to just engage and have a dialogue. So thank you for having me.

  Rubén: Yeah, no, it's, it's great to have you here and you know, you and I have been having some of these conversations for a long time starting with these discussions about solidarity and how solidarity overlaps with participatory action research. And so I'm very excited to talk about some of the challenges and what, what sort of ethical commitments that direct our work. So why don't you start, I, I, I've known your work and have been following it for a while, but why don't you start by telling us a little bit about the kinds of projects that you've been working on where participatory action research plays a central role.

  Aurora: Mm-Hmm. Yeah, so one, the biggest project that I've worked on in recent years was actually my dissertation, which was a qualitative and ethnographic study of participatory action research. And when thinking about and talking about those ethical commitments, why I chose to do a study of PAR rather than do PAR as my dissertation because issues of authorship obviously are present. So I really wanted to understand the collaborative relationship among differently situated actors. So students, undergraduate students, that were taking a PAR class or participatory action research class, myself as the professor coming from a US-based institution to Puerto Rico, which is where I am from and grew up. And also the community co-researchers that participated in the PAR projects that we carried out. So broadly speaking, we worked together for a year in the academic sense, but the project continued on, and we got together with some activists, environmental activists, and community leaders in the urban hub of Cayey to really look at what the concerns and desires were of that community with no real plan, because we really wanted it to be community- driven.

  So we had an idea that we wanted to get to know the community that we were working with that was actually adjacent to a college campus, a university of Puerto Rico Cayey campus. It was an opportunity for the students and for myself to really get to know the surrounding community and to find out what sort of things that they wanted to work on particularly. So it was really up to them. And I can talk a bit about that more and when we get into the specifics, but we carried out three broad projects, one of them was an oral history project done with women in the community, which was made into a virtual exhibit. We did a community center, but because of COVID, which we could also talk about, we had to do a virtual community center.

  And as a result of that course, we started a community organization, which is called the Colectivo Casco Urbano de Cayey, because we wanted to continue doing the work, which in a lot of ways was actually, was challenged by COVID during that time. So we couldn't see each other in person, and we had to find other ways to conduct this research project and to continue the collaboration virtually and then later on when we could see each other than continuing on in-person or hybrid that's one of the projects. And the second project that I'm working on within my postdoc is working with Latinx migrant communities in the Lexington area, in designing what is called a sociotechnical infrastructure which is basically using technology to address their needs. And this, I would not call it a strictly PAR project. I would call it a project that draws on the principles of participatory action research, where we co-create a sort of platform that is relevant to the Latinx community.

  [We are working with] a very heterogeneous community made up of people from multiple countries in Central and South America, as well as the Caribbean, recent migrants, and also long time migrants. But we really wanted to, through community dialogues, get their, their participation into a project that they would be able to use beyond that particular study. So right now it is a website, but we also are trying to develop a community promoter model. So we want to kind of continue this study into training and developing  community co-researchers, but also promoters that are able to, to do the outreach in their community in ways that are culturally relevant to where they live. So those are at large those are the two projects that I've been working on lately.

  Rubén: Right. Great. Thank you so much. And I really would love to revisit these, the conversations about the ways in which you have been using digital dissemination strategies. I think that's one of the most interesting and innovative aspects of your work, that, you know, the mapping work that you've been doing in Cayey. And it sounds like this work in Kentucky also, and I saw about COVID, but it, I think it would be really helpful for our listeners who might not be familiar with Puerto Rico in particular. Maybe if you could say a little bit about Cayey, the community that you work with, and what drew you to that community. And to do that work perhaps just as a way to situate that, that project.

  Aurora: Yeah, so Cayey is located in the central Eastern mountainous region of Puerto Rico, which is an archipelago. So it's made up of various islands that are inhabited. There are three, and I'll call the bigger island, the main island is where Cayey is located. And the [Cayey] campus emerged in the mid 20th century, around the fifties in a time of expansion of Puerto Rico's only public university, which has 11 campuses. So originally it was a teaching college, but it was actually fought for and asked for by the Cayey community who wanted that campus to open. So there was a deep community connection already, and that campus in particular has also been very active. The student movement there has been very active in fighting against budget cuts and neoliberal austerity measures that have been imposed by a fiscal control board that was imposed by the US Congress in 2016.

  So there is a tradition and a history of very active participation in community matters, a very active student movement that has gone on strike various times to fight these austerity measures and also very involved in community life. So they have done a number of initiatives like community kitchens, where folks that are experiencing precarity can get food or trade canned goods for a hot meal, or as well as a community garden that emerged during the strikes. So people were starting to grow their own vegetables, in response to the fact that Puerto Rico imports upwards of about 85, some people say 90% of food. So it's in direct response to food insecurity in Puerto Rico. So that also called my attention, but also that  the Cayey campus of the university has a program where people from the diaspora come, or they don't have to be from Puerto Rico, but that want to participate in a sort of program at their interdisciplinary research institute and can teach a research course for a semester or for a year, and students can be co-researchers or research assistants. And the approach that I took was that I wanted students to be co-researchers with me on these projects. So kind of all of those factors conspired and came together and really made Cayey a place where I wanted to do this kind of community-based work. And because I knew that there were students that were very committed to doing that work as well. I ended up doing my field work there, which was teaching this interdisciplinary research course.

  Rubén: So interesting. And, and it sounds like a, a, a very different context from where your current work in Kentucky. And I'm just curious, like, what are some of the similarities and differences in terms of the communities that you're working on between Cayey and the work you're doing in Kentucky now?

  Aurora: So in Cayey for my dissertation, I designed a sort of intervention where I really wanted to bring together a critical dialogic methodology called intergroup dialogue with participatory action research, because both of these methodologies kind of pursue the same goals. They want and look for coalition building for social change. They promote solidarity and they take a collaborative approach to issues of social justice or to liberation. So those approaches particularly were attractive to me and intergroup dialogue had been mostly done in campus settings, but I wanted to bring together folks from outside of the university and within the university to engage in this methodology, because it promotes kind of meaning making across differences and really enhances communication skills. So this was also born out of my own preoccupation with a lot of social movements when there's conflict or when there's differences.

  People tend to kind of leave the space and, and not engage in hard conversations. And that's in my own experience in the past and activist spaces. So I wanted to design this intervention to see what happens when folks engage in these methodologies. And I continue doing that work in the Lexington project by engaging in community dialogues and bringing together these elements of PAR to see how folks can build trust and engage in  these reciprocal and mutual practices that go beyond the temporary moment, the temporality of meeting, and how can folks continue to use dialogic strategies in their everyday lives, in their relationships, and also how folks build solidarity by doing this collaborative work and engaging in dialogic communication. So those are sort of the intersections of the work. I want to continue building these sorts of interventions in ways that show what can happen when they're combined. And, when you bring folks that are different in terms of socioeconomic status, race, immigration status, gender, sexuality, et cetera which I found that it does, it does really shift ways in, in how we relate to one another. Yeah, I think that's the most important thing for [these projects].

  Rubén: Yeah. And I, and we're really interested in, in those, those differences, I think in particular, because so many of the conversations that we've been having through the podcast are really about how each project or different context, how the ethics that we bring to the work get expressed differently in each of those contexts. And, and we've had many of the participants in the podcast have described, you know, what is, what, what do those ethics look differently when you're doing work in schools versus community centers versus art projects? And you've you've, you mentioned at the earlier, you know, you, you made reference to sort of the difference between doing participatory action research versus doing ethnographic research about participatory action research. And then you also talked about the difference between, you know, some notion of like pure participatory action research versus participatory inspired action research.

  And I, I think that's also something that a lot of, a lot of folks who are interested in participatory action research is often this question of like, okay, what's pure PAR, right? Is, is there such a thing as pure PAR? And when, when, when, and how do we sort of draw on the practices of participatory research in order to shape different kinds of projects? And I, I wonder if maybe you can speak to that a bit by sort of talking to us about what are the ethical commitments that you bring to the work and, and how do these ethical commitments get, get expressed differently depending, you know, based on the different places where you've worked and the different approaches that you've taken. I know that's a big question, but maybe you can give us some examples of what that looks like.

  Aurora: So I think first and foremost, [about] the ways that folks participate. So if we're doing something that's, I, I don't wanna say pure, but closer to, to the strand of participatory action research that I practice, which is very much based in South American understandings. Drawing from Orlando Fals Borda and the work that he did in Colombia during the sixties and seventies, it's very much a tool for activism and organizing. So I view PAR in ways that further certain interests of communities that don't look towards the university for that kind of model of change, but look towards what these folks in these spaces are already doing, and how can we, as people in an academic space become resources or leverage our resources in academic spaces, for the benefit of these communities. And to me, the participation component is very important because there needs to be an opportunity and a space for the folks that are not from the academic space to participate on an equal level, but that doesn't mean that we're doing the same kind of work .

  And I also think that comes in with that ethical commitment, of who has time, who has the resources and who has the ability many times, because if you're doing this within a course, the students already have time carved out, so they have the ability to take on more of the tasks. But the participation aspect is equalized. It is equitable. When I talk about using elements or drawing from them in spaces where there are certain challenges and barriers to equal participation, particularly around how the work is, how the end product is produced. If you don't have participation in every step of the process, from the folks that are outside of the academic space, then I would not call that participatory action research. I could call it action research or having elements of PAR in it, but I would not call it that. And also to me, it also shows up in the publishing, right? So I'm very interested in whatever we produced, whatever knowledge was co-produced be published in a collaborative way. 

  Aurora: Which is what we've done recently with a piece that we are working on for Curriculum Inquiry. So it is very important that folks do participate in every step of that process. And to me, that is really what I consider being more of aligned with the values of participatory action research that I at least practice in my own [work].

  Rubén: Yeah. Yeah. And this, this question of dissemination is, is one definitely that, that we, that we often like to think about and that I think is quite complicated. And, and of course, I'm, you know, familiar with the piece that you have coming out very soon, hopefully, in Curriculum Inquiry which, which I was at a special project, and I'm, I'm interested in how you approach these questions about dissemination. So in addition to writing articles like the one coming out in Curriculum Inquiry, I know that you've done, and you've, you've mentioned already these digital strategies you've been using you know, the mapping, the, the, the virtual map and the, the digital project that you have going on in Kentucky. And I'm wondering how, how you approach these different strategies differently. So why does, how, what kinds of conversations unfold? How do you approach integrating the participants into the decision making and how does that vary, for example, like, what's the difference between the decision making project for something like an academic article versus a decision making project for something like a website or, or, or like a digital yeah, like a digital tool.  Cause I know you've, you've developed a couple of those.

  Aurora: So, yeah, it really does vary from project to project. For example, I didn't mention the mapping project and thank you for reminding me. So one of the first things that we did when we started out our study of the community of the urban hub was a process of familiarization. So the students and I started to get to know the community we were working with. And one of the first things that the students did was walk the urban hub by foot and take a map and did a structural census of all of the buildings. So that way we knew how many of them were residences, businesses, offices, government agencies, et cetera, and that to them, to the students, they found very useful because they were getting to know the space where they were at. So they weren't coming in like very alien or foreign to the space that they were working with.

  And so that project, they ended up writing a report on it. And that is available online with the map that they used and the report, showing visually with graphs the distribution and the layout, and that is open to any person that, you know, wants to see it. And it's on the website. And so that was done by the students. And when we were, when COVID happened and we were talking, we wanted to open up a physical community center. It was actually what the, the suggestion of it being a website was done by one of the community co-researchers. The students took on the weight of creating the website and with myself and, and putting the content in. But those decisions were always done through consensus based processes, where we went around and we talked and we discussed, like, what can we do now?

  I served as sort of a facilitator in those conversations, but not as a decision maker, as someone that had the ultimate say. it was, how do we find a way for what y'all want us to do to make it happen? So the students already knew how to make a website. So they did that. And with the oral history project that was the only project that was sort of pre known that was going be done at the beginning of the semester. Because we were working with another partner originally and they asked us to do something similar. But when that [partnership] fell through, we continued with the project, but the research questions were designed by the participants, by the interviewees and the students. We had folks come in and talk about oral histories, they read about oral histories.

  So they prepared for it that way. And the map that was used in that project was the same map that the students used. And we worked with a curator that helped us do that and, and set it up as a website. So that one, you know, was directly done with the interviewees and there was collaboration within that. And yeah, so those were sort of the different strategies also done with the Lexington project. The website was designed by having done focus groups beforehand with civil society folks, but also with these community dialogues in mind, talking to folks about how they get their information, what they need, or what are the gaps of information, do they know these services exist or not? So it was kind of a scaffolded approach on having different people come in at different points of the project. So it really does vary depending on what's being done.

  Rubén: Yeah. Yeah. And, and, you know, I think you know, I remember when we were working with the youth couple years ago on, on our final project at the beginning of the pandemic on how you know, how, how the youth in our project were experiencing COVID, you know, we ended up putting two, two products out. One was a digital story. One was an article. And even though they were based on the same data and they were sort of in a sense telling the same story, how, how we all participated differently in terms of what that actually looked like. Right. So the adults played a more kind of heavier hand on the written one, whereas the youth played a heavier hand on the digital one, and that seemed to sort of allow for the products in the end to be different because they were being shaped by different hands.

  And you you've talked a little bit about the differences in terms of the, the, the, the availability. So, so the fact that the students had time to be able to do certain things that perhaps community members couldn't do that. I'm wondering about other kinds of power related differences. So, for example, in what ways in these two projects that you've been working, how do power issues related to gender and, or, or race, or even, you know, I know even within the Latinx community, you know, race is always kind of latent there, even though oftentimes people like to ignore it, but I'm wondering, in addition to the sort of material and, and sort of class context, you know, how, how have some of these challenges, how have you addressed them how have they manifested themselves? And in what ways have they sort of shaped the, the outcome of the work?

  Aurora: I think that in regards to let's say, social identity differences, that's one set of issues that arose, and that also are in conjunction with personal circumstances, right? So, for example, when we were working, as I mentioned earlier, when we were working on the website, the students took on more of the weight of the work, but during the first semester, when we were going through the process of getting to know the folks that we were working with, the nonacademic folks, they took a lot more weight of having to tell us, explain to us the story, the context what's happening in the community. And because, you know, some of these folks, and I also wanna say that the students were also in very similar precarious situations where some were contributing financially to their homes, had three jobs and had a lot of obstacles after, after the pandemic started, where some of them connected via phone, on Zoom.

  So it's not so cut and dry. I felt like if anything, I was the one [sic] there were a lot of power differentials because I was the professor and there was a power there inherent that I had to constantly name and, and, you know, talk about. And also the fact that I came from a US-based institution where there are more resources in a lot of ways, compared to Puerto Rico's university. So you know, we openly talked about those experiences as well and how they differed. What they mentioned throughout the process was that none of them felt like their contributions were diminished. They were equally as important. The knowledge that came from outside of the university space was just as equal, just, you know, as, as any sort of academic work. So that was also very important to always sort of name and have very present.

  In, in the context of the other study with the folks, the community dialogues that we held with the folks  in Kentucky, it got a little complicated because, you know, and when you add the dimension of citizenship as well, when you're talking about how do you get health insurance, for example, a lot of the folks were talking about, well, how do you even get an identification number to begin with, and this is something that had never crossed my mind as a colonial subject, but as a US citizen. So you have to redirect your thinking because you're like, okay, so I cannot ask these questions in the same way. So those power, you know, thinking about those differentials and how they also affect us differently. Yes. Also mentioning there were issues of race that were mentioned. There were issues where we had to deal with in very careful ways to not alienate the participants in being honest and vulnerable in what they're talking, but at the same time, listening to some very problematic conversations around race relations. So just trying to build a space, a container where folks feel comfortable, but also creating community guidelines was very important. And also even things like having dinner, eating together, having non formal work space and time to kind of, you know, build that, that relationship outside of, of the research.

  Rubén: Yeah, yeah. That element, I think and, and this is a good, a good way to get back to the conversation about COVID. Because we, we found that that element of the work that is the informal interactions that happen, say around a dinner table sharing food, in this spaces before and after, right. The interactions were were so important. And, and we've heard from folks who have contributed to the podcast so much how important those interactions are. And in the context of COVID, those spaces largely disappeared, right? There was no longer when we, when things were happening on Zoom, we were no longer sharing food. There's the, the Zoom space really curtails the, or at least we, we found really curtailed the sort of interaction that happens in the, in between spaces, right? The before and after the kind of socializing the saying, hello, the hugs, the, the how’s your family, right? The, the cause is Zoom, right. That, that, because Zoom for, for whatever reason really sort of doesn't allow for that sort of informal space. And so I'm wondering what your experience was shifting to COVID, how COVID sort of impacted and, and what were the decisions, what were some of the key decisions that you had to make when COVID hit and suddenly you found yourself having to do this work differently and using virtual tools. That's just, it's something that we're interested in, in talking and thinking about. You mentioned it a few times.

  Aurora: Yeah. The spring or the second semester of the 2019-20 academic year got off to a very rough start in Puerto Rico. In January, we had a series of earthquakes that were very intense and, you know, I'm talking about 6.4 [on the Richter scale]. So already there was like a level of anxiety among everyone that was palpable, you know, because it's pretty horrific to go through that being there and once COVID began, no one really had any idea. We thought it was gonna be two weeks of online [classes] and then we would go back. But I think that the thing that really allowed us to continue, and that's something that everyone talked about constantly was the fact that we already had built an in-person relationship since September. So we had been working together for six months.

  We had new students come in, in January, but they had, you know, two months where we would meet once a week for three hours. So we had a lot of time together. And then we started having weekend meetings. Additionally. So we spent a significant amount of time together, and we mostly met at one of the co-researcher’s house. So she would make us food, for Christmas, she would make us like this incredible meal of like five or six things like, you know, rice and pigeon peas and pork on a spit. So it was amazing. So that interaction allowed us that when this transition came, it was a lot less felt. And we still felt the closeness of that moment so much. So that class ended in May. And once we knew that we could wear masks and be outside in July, we started doing our pop up pantries. So we came back together. I think the semester probably ended a little later, like in June, but in July we started doing this again. We did it in August. And once I left for the US, everyone kept doing it in September and October until we had the permanent pantry set up. So we had that time before, which helped us continue the work when the pandemic came.

  Rubén: Right, right. Another one of the, of the themes you and I have been talking about for a long time and that I know is a, it's a big interest for you and that it's also the focus of your article in Curriculum Inquiry is this concept of solidarity, which, you know, nowadays over the last two years, particularly over the pandemic has become this sort of word that everybody uses for all kinds of. I mean, it's always been that, but I think the pandemic has sort of exacerbated. And I'm wondering for you having done this work and I, I know that solidarity is also sort of an important concept in terms of your orientation to this work. What have you learned? So, what have been in, in the few years, in the years that you've been doing participatory research around this to explore this concept, I'm, I'm curious, what have you learned about solidarity and, and, and I particularly curious, do you think solidarity is still a salient and, and, and useful idea for thinking about not just in general for thinking about social relations, but specifically to, for thinking about participatory research?

  Aurora: Well, to start with the end. Yes. I still very much think that solidarity is, is probably for me the main ingredient that is necessary in participatory action research, especially because you're working with folks that can come from very different places, spaces, backgrounds, context, et cetera. So I think it's necessary when you're working across difference in a way that's very kind of grounded in understanding that conflict can happen, that, you know, it's not gonna be easy. It will probably be very hard. But I do think that the approach in what I've learned in my time sort of grappling with the concept, but also trying to like concretely learn about how to do it, how to apply it and how it's developed, I think that a lot of the times when we're doing certain kinds of work, we become sort of task-oriented and we forget about the relationship building.

  And I think it happens in political organizing context and community organ- in grassroots , we're so caught up in trying to do the things that we forget how to be together. And I think that that's why for me, it will continue being a salient concept as long as we also live in the world that we live in, where individualism is kind of the modus operandi of, you know, the context that we live in. I think that solidarity will always be an important counter to the ways that people, you know, a lot of people relate to today and sort of those transactional neoliberal ways. So I do think it is very important. I think that it's also very much needed in my context of Puerto Rico, as a way to, to enact a decolonial practice, like how do we become, how do we act differently towards one another?

  And what are the possibilities of that in resisting colonial domination and structures? So to me, it's a very concrete thing. And to me it's still very much important. Even though at sometimes it's temporary or there's a temporality to solidarity, but every time in Puerto Rico, particularly when we see that there's a government disaster, you know, in conjunction with a natural disaster folks do tend to step up for their neighbors, for people they don't know for their family, for their friends. So I, I still think it's very much a practice that is needed and that, and that we do see it in, in,  in different places.

  Rubén: Yeah. Yeah. In fact, this context of emergency for me, what they, what they bring into relief is the contrast between solidarity that is, that is premised on, on a hierarchical order, right. Where those with privilege attempt to be in solidarity with those without, and then solidarity as a kind of practice of reciprocity that is expressed through things like mutual aid. You know, I think that one of the things that I found really interesting through the pandemic is just noticing the contrast between those two, right. And the way that the, the different top sort of dynamics that, that expressed through that. So thank you for that. And so as you look ahead to your new, new position, congratulations again, on your new position. I'm wondering if you, what, if you have sort of future projects in mind what's the future of the Colectivo Casco Urbano de Cayey , if that, if that is continuing and if you're gonna be in, you know, what, what do you see it as that, and whether you have some new projects brewing that you'd like to share or that you're sort of thinking about.

  Aurora: Yeah. Thank you for that. Thank you for your congratulations. In terms of the Colectivo Casco Urbano de Cayey, once, as I mentioned, the class was over, [and after] we started two main initiatives for the project. When I say we, I include myself because we actually still meet twice a month virtually. And when I'm in Puerto Rico, we end up meeting in person or they meet in person and I meet virtually. So that's very much still going on. And as you said about mutual aid projects and thinking about solidarity, the projects that we are working on are mutual aid projects. So, as I said, first is a community pantry. So we ended up occupying an abandoned building, putting up two pieces of furniture where folks can drop off things such as non-perishable food and clothing and other folks can pick up. So it's sort of a take what you need and leave what you can.

  And that very much drives our work too. It's like, we can give what we can, right. We work on our strengths and that's how we contribute. So that's still very much active and we have new members. We have members that have left. We have members that have joined. We are working with farmers who are helping us with a garden that we started to, we have an urban garden, which is really cool. So we're trying to see different ways of, you know, providing vegetables and food and, and herbs for, for the folks in the space. And in terms of my own projects, I am working on a book manuscript that sort of looks at different projects that are anchored in mutual aid and solidarity in Puerto Rico. And I'm looking at a street library project, feminist pantries that also emerged in Puerto Rico after COVID 19, the work of the Colectivo Casco Urbano de Cayey , and also the work of La Colectiva Feminista en Construcción, which is a black feminist organization that has been raising awareness of systemic racism, Anti-Black racism, colonial violence in Puerto Rico. So I'm looking at these sorts of projects as interrelated because they are in a lot of ways, they stem from the afterlives of the student movement, but also as forms of self-determination in Puerto Rico.

  Rubén: Mm-Hmm. And yeah. That's okay. I hear you. I hear your dog back there. That's okay. Don. No, don't, that's just life. Don't worry about it. But I'm also wondering, so maybe this, this can start, we can start sort of being in a different position. 

  So one of the things that I often struggle with as a faculty member working with doctoral students is how to help doctoral students who want, who come in into the program wanting to do participatory action research, but oftentimes not having relationships with communities. And, and I, I always appreciate the spirit and the ethic that the students bring, but I I'm often hesitant because of the practical aspects of implementing that spirit. And, and I wonder as, as a, as someone who did participatory action research, or, or at least did work about participatory action research through your dissertation, what sort of advice would you give future practitioners and specifically, I'm thinking about future doctoral students or graduate students who might be interested in, in doing participatory action research.

  Aurora: So I think what I was really wanting to look at in my own work was the process itself, the collaborative process, what happens because a lot of the time we look at sort of what, what is the end product of participatory action research. So in thinking about what are ways that you can come at it that are not necessarily, you know, crossing an ethical boundary of, you know, authorship, right? Because the work produced is collective, as I mentioned earlier. So looking at processes, what works, what doesn't work, how, what does that look like? I think there should be more work and theorizing that, or even thinking about that in practical ways, like practical ways to apply that, not necessarily this is my dissertation and its participatory action research. Also, you know, I think being really honest, like not everything, it can be fully participatory, right.

  And if we think about it that way, and we kinda let that go, in ways that maybe we can look towards action research or elements of participatory action research in the work, I think there's a lot less pressure because I think we come in it with like, we wanna do it purely, and we wanna do it like 100%. And there's so many challenges, with time and you know, I feel bad a lot of times asking for folks that are not in the academic space to, to, to even be able to come to a lot of these meetings. So also if you end up doing that, I would say to a student, these things are gonna happen outside of work hours outside, you know, they're gonna take weekends, they're gonna take nights. They're going to take you rearranging yourself to other folks' schedules because that's what it is. And, you know, that's sort of what comes with that territory. So I don't know, I would say like, keep doing work about PAR, ethnographies of PAR, qualitative research of PAR or action research, because I think the ethical piece is so important in that. And I think that should never be sort of dropped to the side when, when doing this kind of work.

  Rubén: Yeah. Yeah. Well, so I'm, I'm always struggling too with like, what are the non-negotiables right? Like whether you're doing participatory action research or PAR inspired research or research about par, like, what are the non-negotiables, what are the sort of like, okay, this is non-negotiable, if this is not there, then, then you can't even use the term. Like what, what would you say? Like what's, non-negotiable for you as a practitioner?

  Aurora: Ooh, I, I don't know if folks are gonna agree with it, but to me having a project that is thought up of with the folks that are outside the academic space, not bringing in a prepackaged project or even being able to develop, even if that's the case, like some aspect that is sort of outside of that, that is fully done with folks outside the academic space from its inception to its end. To me, that would be a non-negotiable in doing that work. So the oral histories, I wouldn't necessarily call it full on PAR. Cause we already had that in mind. I think that authorship is important so whatever the way that this is disseminated and we, we talked a little about ways. Yeah. Reports, articles, websites, exhibits, like any sort of way, needs to be credited to the folks that are not in the academic side. Yeah. That needs to happen. I think that I cannot take someone else's work and say it's mine because it is not. Yeah. so I think that's also a way to do that. 

  Rubén: Yeah. And I appreciate that piece. I think it's important also to remember that publishing articles is not the only way to disseminate knowledge. Right. And, and I think that sometimes the conversation gets stuck on this issue of authorship of academic articles, as if that were the sort of preeminent way to share knowledge, right. Like there, and especially now with you've, you've given us so many really beautiful examples from your own work, in terms of other ways of disseminating knowledge that allow for the participants to be credited and to be, to give them the in a sense that kind of the, the authorial relationship to the knowledge. So anyways those are all the questions I have. I don't know if there's anything that we, that you'd like to share with our audiences of the YPAR podcast, anything we haven't talked about or.

  Aurora: Well, we're on Facebook at Instagram, Colectivo Casco Urbano de Cayey . So for folks that wanna find out about the sort of work that we do and have that visual of the work, everyone's more than welcome to visit if they can. And yeah, I appreciate the time and having me here.

  Rubén: Yeah, no, it's been great. Going to share this with my Puerto Rican sister and I look forward to hopefully at some point having a project where we can collaborate whether it's in Puerto Rico or wherever it is that that define us. So thank you so much. 

  So thanks again for taking the time to chat more very exciting work and and yeah, and good luck with your new position and your move. You're moving to the Midwest, from the 

  Aurora: Yes. A big change. Thank you so much. 

  Rubén: Thank you so much for joining us in today’s episode. I hope you enjoyed my conversation with Aurora Santiago-Ortiz. I found it fascinating, the conversation about how COVID has affected oru work as practitioners, which is something we have been looking at here at the Youth Research Lab and that we hope to continue exploring as the work shifts under  the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. I also found it really interesting to have conversations about the continuing relevance of solidarity, as well as thinking about different ways of disseminating knowledg.e I hope you enjoyed this episode, stay tuned for the next episode, and we’ll see you next time. 

  REFERENCES:

  Aurora’s website - https://www.aurorasantiago-ortiz.com/ 

  Aurora’s Twitter - https://twitter.com/santiaaurora?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor 

  Aurora’s dissertation - Collaboration, Collective Agency, and Solidarity Through Participatory Action Research in Puerto Rico -  https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_2/2218/ 

  Research in Progress: “La solidaridad no perece”: Community organizing, political agency, and mutual aid in Puerto Rico. Peer-reviewed journal article for Curriculum Inquiry.

  Colectivo Casco Urbano de Cayey Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/ccucayey/ 

  Colectivo Casco Urbano de Cayey webite

  fbclid=IwAR0D4rxArwyF3iGkNbea9ScHZDpANRBeTxZJdZ3vLfC4Lu0Zqr9f0shj13U 

  Colectivo Casco Urbano de Cayey Instagram-  https://www.instagram.com/ccucayey2020/?hl=en

  La Colectiva Feminista en Construcción https://www.facebook.com/Colectiva.Feminista.PR/ 

Details

This episode features conversation between Dr. Aurora Santiago-Ortiz, Assistant Professor of Gender and Women studies the University of Wisconsin, Madison, with podcast host Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández, a Professor here at OISE, the Director of the Youth Research Lab, and one of the Co-Producers of The WhyPAR podcast. In this episode, Aurora and Rubén discuss the principles that constitute “pure” PAR, and how principles of PAR can be adapted across diverse contexts. They discuss themes including challenges of conducting PAR during the COVID-19 pandemic, facilitating equitable participation in PAR, and the role of solidarity in community spaces. Aurora discusses her work both with the community organization Colectivo Casco Urbano de Cayey and with Latinx migrants in Lexington, Kentucky.

Aurora Santiago Ortiz, PhD, is 2020 Ford Dissertation Fellow and current Lyman T. Johnson Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Kentucky. She obtained her PhD from the Social Justice Education program at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Her work examines community based, participatory action research and critical methodologies; anticolonial, queer, feminist, and antiracist social movements; and decolonial feminisms.

This episode was hosted and directed by Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández, produced by Naima Raza and Ruben Gaztambide-Fernandez, and supported by Youth Research Lab assistants Oliver Thompson and Madeleine Ross.

References and further reading

Aurora’s website - https://www.aurorasantiago-ortiz.com/

Aurora’s Twitter - https://twitter.com/santiaaurora?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

Aurora’s dissertation - Collaboration, Collective Agency, and Solidarity Through Participatory Action Research in Puerto Rico -  https://scholarworks.umass.edu/dissertations_2/2218/

Research in Progress: “La solidaridad no perece”: Community organizing, political agency, and mutual aid in Puerto Rico. Peer-reviewed journal article for Curriculum Inquiry.

Colectivo Casco Urbano de Cayey Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/ccucayey/

Colectivo Casco Urbano de Cayey webite

https://ccucayey.wixsite.com/website?fbclid=IwAR0D4rxArwyF3iGkNbea9ScHZDpANRBeTxZJdZ3vLfC4Lu0Zqr9f0shj13U

Colectivo Casco Urbano de Cayey instagram-  https://www.instagram.com/ccucayey2020/?hl=en

La Colectiva Feminista en Construcción https://www.facebook.com/Colectiva.Feminista.PR/

Episode 11: “What happens when you run onto the edges of progressivism?”: On Conducting YPAR in Elite Schools, A Conversation Between Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández and Leila Angod

• Read Transcript

  Citation:

  Gaztambide-Fernández, Rubén. ““What happens when you run onto the edges of progressivism?”: On Conducting YPAR in Elite Schools, A Conversation Between Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández and Leila Angod.” Produced by Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández and Naima Raza at The Youth Research Lab. The WhyPAR Podcast. March 1, 2022. Podcast, MP3 audio, https://youthresearchlab.org/whypar

  Note on attribution:

  When citing the ideas and/or when quoting material from this podcast, please attribute the ideas to the speaker(s) and, whenever possible, note the timestamp or the line where the words quoted can be found. We recommend that you draw on the style conventions typically used for “secondary sources,” such as “quoted in” (Chicago Style) or “as cited in” (APA), and that you cite the source as listed above.

  Leila: "So for me, it was about subverting how schools work from the beginning, um, which has been sort of the ongoing tension in that YPAR does, it doesn't work well, well at schools. It fundamentally contradicts schooling in a lot of ways. So, that's where some of my commitments come from, I mean, ethically for me, it's been about , you know, how do we create spaces that, um, bring, you know, help bring young people's voices to the forefront? How do we do anti-racism in ways that are youth centered?"

  Host: Welcome everyone! To the eleventh episode of the WhyPAR podcast. My name is Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández, and I am a Professor here at OISE, the Director of the Youth Research Lab, and one of the Co-Producers of The Why PAR podcast.

  Music

  Host: The Youth Research Lab is located in Tkaronto on the traditional territories of the Huron-Wendat, the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, and most recently, the Mississaugas of the Credit River. 

  I am very delighted to welcome you to today’s episode, which marks the first anniversary of The WhyPAR podcast. Back in the first two episodes a year ago, we hosted a conversation with my Co-Producer, long-time collaborator and co-conspirator, Dr. Sarah Switzer, and for this eleventh episode, I’m joined by Dr. Leila Angod, Assistant Professor in the Childhood and Youth Studies Program at Carleton University, and she’s a former postdoctoral fellow at the Youth Research Lab. 

  Leila is a YPAR practitioner and I had the pleasure of collaborating with her in several projects through the Youth Research Lab. Leila is also one of the founders of the YRL’s in:cite journal, which is an online journal space and community for gathering and spreading knowledge by, for, and created with young people.

   In this episode, Leila and I discuss the challenges of doing youth participatory action research within the context of elite institutions and we reflect on some of the ethical challenges that we as adults must contend with when working with young people in different educational contexts. 

   And with that, let’s jump in! 

  Rubén: Welcome to the WhyPAR podcast, Dr. Leila Angod, thank you for joining us. Today we have the privilege of speaking with Dr. Leila Angod from Carleton University, who is a former collaborator or current-and-former collaborator of the Youth Research Lab and I'm really excited to be having this conversation with you and as you said, we have so many pending, unended conversations that we have had, have been having for so long that I'm excited to be in conversation with you. But let's start from the beginning. And, I want to ask you, what brought you to YPAR, and particularly, what kinds of ethical commitments and political commitments brought you to begin with, to this kind of work?

  Leila: Thanks Rubén. I just, yeah, I just want to reiterate, I'm really happy to be here and happy that you invited me. It's such a pleasure to be able to spend this time together and explore things that we've been working on. What brought me to YPAR, well, you brought me to, YPAR actually, in a few different ways, right? And it really came about, for me, my interest came from right out of my doctoral dissertation and seeing how schools are inviting young people to participate in social change projects and how problematic that is. So, I've done work on voluntourism for example, and how that's imagined the social justice education and anti-racism, and just uncovering how problematic that is and how it's being carried out and how, you know, the teaching and learning of colonial and racial orders are being institutionalized at schools. I wanted to do something that really flipped that, and really started with young people and where their interests are, what their questions are and what abilities they bring. And that, I mean, dovetails perfectly with YPAR. So for me, it was about subverting how schools work from the beginning,  which has been sort of the ongoing tension in that YPAR does, it doesn't work well, well at schools. It fundamentally contradicts schooling in a lot of ways. So, that's where some of my commitments come from, I mean, ethically for me, it's been about, you know, how do we create spaces that, bring, you know, help bring young people's voices to the forefront? How do we do anti-racism in ways that are youth centered? So for me, the political commitments to really come through the theoretical commitments that I have to critical race feminism, to anticolonial work, and really, you know, being in conversation with young people about those, about those theories to unpack them together and see, you know, what kind of pathways these open up.

  Rubén: One thing that we, that our work shares in common obviously is that we have been doing this work within schooling institutions, primarily secondary schools, and I wonder for you, what are the specific challenges that come up in that? And what makes the work of doing YPAR in schools particular for you, and also work doing it within elite schools in the case of some of your work initially with the Youth Research Lab, but then later, I think in a lot of ways, universities, even if they're not universities, even if they're not elite universities, they're still elite institutions. So can you talk a little bit about what that looks like, specific challenges that come up in doing that work?

  Leila: There's so many challenges, so many challenges that come up in that work, where do you even start? I mean, I think just thinking about the process and the starting points, one of them is simply finding a language to be in conversation with schools about what you're doing, and that gets very quickly to the ethical problems of doing the work. So, how am I describing to a principal, vice-principal, school leaders, you know, that I want to do a project that unmasks the operation of power at their school? How do I frame that? What are the ethics around framing the risks to young people of doing that kind of work at their institution? And, I mean, in the elite schooling context, we've kind of, one of the, we've talked about in the past, restorative approaches and subversive approaches to YPAR and just in the elite school, you know, so ways that we work to move resources to support marginalized students, as a restorative kind of approach and how that works subversively in elite schools. But one of the things that I've been thinking about recently is, um, sort of how YPAR worked as racialized and racializing in the elite school context. 

  So the facilitators were me and a very dear friend and collaborator who's a black Canadian woman, Karima Kinlock who's an incredible facilitator. Right? And, so what we found was that in us leading YPAR in the kinds of texts that we were inviting students to engage with, in centering that we're doing anti-oppressive work, anti-racist work, right? Work that centers Queer students. And doing that, it became a racializing space that actually further racialized the students of color that came, that came to, that were, you know, the YPAR participants. And so what this actually did was intensify some of the racism and gender-based discrimination that they were already experiencing at the school. So it's this kind of dilemma of, that you always have in ethnographic research where, you know, you're shaping the context as you're being shaped by it, but in the context of YPAR then, ethically, you know, what am I, I don't know what I'm actually inviting students to get involved with. And, and they can't know in advance either. And so those were things that we had to unpack together as they were in the process of going through the research and how, you know, their experiences of being branded, you know, social justice warriors, and different kinds of things. And how it was actually racialized boys who were engaging in this behavior and what that meant.

  Rubén: One thing that you're reminding me that I, that I'm curious how you're thinking about it now, in retrospect, but also, based on other experiences that you had, was that obviously part of the reason why some of these elite institutions, and even I would say schools in general welcome the idea of a participatory research project is because they often only fancy themselves as liberal and progressive and self-critical and reflexive and willing and able and desirous of wanting to engage in this process. But one of the things that we always run into in school-based YPAR in general, but I think in the context within which you were working in particular is, when do we run into the limits of that? Right? So at what point do we start asking questions that are, that are not the right questions to ask? And then how do actually, to your point about methods, how does, how does the institution then sort of revert? So in, because at the beginning, it's not like they don't know that the research that we're doing is not traditional research, but at the beginning they say, “Yes, that's what we want”. But then when, it seems like when we run into the edges or run into the boundary of what they're willing to consider, then they sort of come back and say, “Oh, actually that's not really research”. Right? Like the thing that they knew from the beginning then becomes the argument against why, why this is not worth considering. And then, and then what happens, right? Cause I think part of that is also the different ways in which then they try to either expun, expulse you, expunge you, or absorb you, you know?

  Leila: I'd say where this came out most clearly for me was in the youth presentation to teachers and school leadership. Um, that was one of the culminating knowledge mobilization initiatives that the youth researchers wanted to enact. And, uh, that's where I really remember grappling with the dismissiveness of the school in terms of what the students were recommending for how to make their education just less harmful, how to make the school culture focused on competition and a very kind of white, hetero, patriarchal, masculine, you know, kind of culture. How to make it just less harmful for Queer and women of color in general. And that's where the pushback really came around. Well, you know, right, exactly as you're saying, how did, you know going to the legitimacy of this kind of research and are these young people really researchers? Is this really, you know, can you really back up the claims that you're making and the demands that you're making? And so from there, I mean we kind of did the move, sort of thinking about it with the young people to kind of refusals and resistances that they were coming up against, was kind of what we do as academics, which was to write about it. So that's where with in:cite, one of the first articles that came out in the first issue was called “Unaffirmative Actions: Lessons on Refusal, Racism, and Youth Research”. And it looked at how the youth researchers were dismissed and even just the interview process, and kind of being scolded and what they described as condescending behavior. Right? That was one way that I think we created something from the walls that were put up to contain what was coming out of the research. 

  Rubén: I want to ask you more about the dissemination and how that, how that experience might inform the way that you take up dissemination in the future. Cause I, I also remember the first time that, that the youth in our project back maybe seven years ago, the first time that we took up an opportunity to have them share their findings. And it was similar except it was actually in a much more racist, explicit way. I mean, we're working with Latinx students and I explicitly remember this, the teachers, you know, when the students who were presenting their work, were standing up in front of the audience and sharing, like it was literally, "You didn't do that. You didn't do that". What'd you say, what'd you say you did?” you know, "I don't believe that you did it." So it was this completely patronizing, dismissive, you know, “You can't have possibly done what you say you're doing and if you did, then, then it's not a reflection”, you know, it’s sort of the old, the old trope of when, when people of color do something good, it must have been an individual accomplishment, but when people of color did something bad, it's reflecting a lot of them. They've all, because they're all bad. So I remember that and taking a different kind of manifestation. But I'm curious about how as you think about your new projects, how are you thinking about dissemination differently given those experiences?

  Leila: It's funny because it's just such a different moment now in COVID to think about dissemination. And I think it, it's changing so quickly. And I think it's to me, it's more urgent than ever that it, that question be put to young people in terms of, that is meaningful to you in terms of, you know, in terms of getting your knowledge, creation out there. Who do you, who is your audience? Who do you want to be in conversation with? How, how would you, what are the communities that you would like to create in and through knowledge dissemination? That's maybe one of the biggest things that has come up for me in thinking about in:cite, because it's one of the places that I would, would like to see it get to is creating community through knowledge dissemination. So not just, you know, a place to invite people that we know to publish, but really creating opportunities and providing the support for young people to be able to publish, to have something publishable, it takes an incredible amount of different kinds of capitals to be positioned to do that. And so I think for me, the community piece is really, that's really what comes through right now, as opposed to the kind of maybe more neoliberal ways in which, the conflicting ways in which we're required to think about knowledge dissemination as outputs, as numbers, as things we have to provide a funding body. 

  Rubén: So let’s talk about in:cite for a bit. Because in a lot of ways, you know, it was your baby, clearly you played a very significant role in shaping the emergence of that. How did it come about? How did it evolve? What did you see as the initial promises of in:cite as a project that excited you on that and that you know, kept you inspired and moved you to do that?

  Leila: So, as I remember it, it came out of conversations with the youth researchers about, we've done all this great work. You've created some, some really great things here. You've presented it, what do we do at these artifacts now? What do we, what do you want to do with it? Do you wanna do anything with it? Um, how do you kind of see this as living in the world? And because it's a very academic group as well. I think this is part of the context that, um, these are students who are accustomed to excelling in a kind of traditional academic environment. So, they were really excited about the idea of publishing a journal and for it to be open access friends, you know, the, the, some of the commitments around accessibility, around, we had talked very early on about providing mentorship to younger writers and how to invite younger writers to the table to provide opportunities to mentor, um, younger people in terms of, so part of the structure, right, was that we'd have a youth editorial board. And that just came out of the, that was kind of an extension of the, of YPAR. If that makes sense? And so that was kind of a mentorship model as well, in terms of bringing other people onto the youth editorial board. I mean, I don't know what the initial promises were beyond, it was more just, you know, it was more just trying to see what we could, what we could create and where, where it might go. And it was really a lot about the process because it was a group of young people who had now finished YPAR, maybe going on to university or taking gap year or whatever, who wanted to spend more time together. And we had built this really nice community through YPAR and we had these, you know, these relationships and these great conversations, and we didn't really want to give that up. And so we wanted to find a new way to grow that, and this was, this was the direction that, that folks were excited about. And also terrified about it. Like, what are we getting ourselves into? And, you know, can this even, can we make it to the first issue?

  Rubén: I think it's interesting, uh, how, and, and we certainly have experienced this working with the young people in schools and, and even when, even when they're not young people necessarily that see themselves as academic superstars in the way that, or as academically sort of elite in the way that, in the way that the youth that you worked with at the time, uh, perhaps saw themselves to some extent. But I think that there's a tension, uh, that we sit on the experience when, when young people, you know, we, we have, we have experienced a trajectory ourselves of having experienced what it is like to attempt to enact a certain kind of success as an academic and the, and the cost of that. Right. And the trappings of that. And obviously, you know, young people in high school or at that age haven't yet experienced that. And so therefore to some extent, they still buy into that. They still believe that, um, that the, that, that is that, that is how you demonstrate excellence. That, uh, publishing in a journal, or because I remember even like with our youth, you know, we, we talked about lots of different ways of disseminating. And for some reason, you know, when we talked about writing academic articles, they all wanted to do it. They thought it was brilliant. They thought it was great. "I want to be an author. I want to have my name attached to that thing". Yeah. They were, they were also interested in the other things that we were, that we were doing, but to them that still had a lot of purchase. And so part of the, part of the challenge, I think, as an adult facilitator is, how do you, how do you not, how do we actually, I should say, cause I still find myself in that situation, like how do we facilitate that process in a way that still honors their own journey, that doesn't project onto them in a way that can be patronizing? "Oh, you just don't know any better" you know? Or, "If you only knew how treacherous and racist and problematic the peer review process is, you wouldn't want to do this". Um, I don't know if I'm, I dunno what I'm asking, but I, I think it's actually, I'm asking a bigger question about, about the, the challenges of being an adult facilitating participatory research with young people and, and the ways in which adultism, uh, express it express or manifest itself sometimes in how we direct that process and what we allow to happen and what we don't. So I guess I'm asking you to, to or I'm, um, um, I mean, I'm not asking you anything, I'm just sort of pointing to the different levels at which I wish this process is operating, right? The level of honoring a certain process to unfold and the level of the larger question of how do we, as adults facilitate a process with young people that truly honours their journey and their process?

  Leila: Right. Well, and one place where I've doubted that, I kind of really question over-directing and over-structuring is just in how academic the journal was becoming. And so there was a real desire there for it to be a very critical journal, that was the youth editors' desire. Um, but there comes with that, I mean, that comes with, the language that comes with an elite language that comes with, with, you know, the capital of having access to that. And so getting new submissions that maybe didn't look critical or that were from really young authors, right? How did then, how do you assess that? How do  you understand that? How do you create even, um, a review process drawing from what, what we're trying to work with, which is an adult-based peer review process that, you know, replicates all these problems that we're trying to, trying to work against. Um, you know, how do we really, how do we really do that? And what does it look like to have a critical journal with, with really young, really young authors, right? Now we're replicating eliteness and being exclusive right? And, and drawing boundaries to keep people out because they're not speaking the right language of what looks and sounds critical rather than again, going back to creating the community, um, for young people, for, to mobilize knowledge, right?

  Rubén: Earlier we were talking about how these elite institutions that fancy themselves progressive, how you, what happens when you run into the edges of that progressivism? But what I'm also hearing you say, or what the, what your words are triggering for me is that, that sort of response also comes from the other side, right? That, that people who are committed to critical work, to political work have their own understandings of, of what counts as proper critical work, what counts as the proper language to the critical work, what counts as the proper questions to ask, what counts as the proper communities to engage, and that in a sense, they can become equally exclusionary.

  Leila: That's exactly what I'm saying. And then, so then, but then if that's coming from the youth editors, if that's kind of the culture that's being created and that's the trajectory that's coming out and I'm at odds with that, so then what, then what's my, my role as a facilitator? Then, you know, how do I intervene in that way without a kind of adult adultism sort of patronizing thing, right? 

  Rubén: Well, I think, I think that the part of it that to me is fascinating and I think it's important to share if we could find a way to describe it is that, these questions about dissemination and about how we choose to share the knowledge that young people produce don't are not, don't have simple answers. And that, and that they do require negotiation and pushback and sometimes putting, putting the values that inform the work that we do at stake and putting them on the line, you know? And saying, because they have become competing values, right? You know, I, I might be committed to, uh, an engagement around ideas of ri- I'll give you an example from our work, the word resilience. So, we were trying to really push the, the young people to think critically about the word resilience, but they keep, they kept going back to it. And in the end, you know, at some point we have to say, you know what, this is the word that resonates with them. This is the word that they want to use. Let's just, let's just listen to them. You know, let's listen to what they want to say about resilience. Let's not fall on this bandwagon, this very sort of political, critical bandwagon of "Don't call me resilient", or, you know, "resiliency is, is all these problems". Okay. Yeah, that's fine. But there's something taking place here that we have to pay attention to, you know? Um, and cause, you know, if, if we're going to expect that the institutions that we work for, uh, open up a space for the young people to be heard and taken seriously, then we kind of have to do the same thing. Like really, we need to figure out a way to do that, even when it means suspending our own convictions about what is the right language or what is the right framework.

  Leila: And I think there's something for for us to learn from that positioning as well, and the kind of ability to hold together the contradictions in a kind of vulnerability around maybe not using, not using the same language or the right language or the most, you know? There's, I think there's something there that feeds back into into, you know, academic culture that we can learn. Right? 

  Rubén: So if, if you had a doctoral student now that you're in a full-time faculty position, and you had a doctoral student and they said to you, "Hey, you know, I, I'm a teacher at such and such school and I want to do a YPAR project". What would be all of the advice that you would give to those wanting to do YPAR or YPAR-like projects within elite schools?

  Leila: Do it. We have to do it, has to be done. It has to be done, organize your people, get, you know, get support. There's so much funding in elite schools for professional development. There is so much money, right? There are ways that you can bring people in as speakers, right? That you can, um, just mobilize that, that funding to, to try different things that, you know, um, create just a, a different kind of space for students to allow for, you know, allow for them to experience what it means to be in community in a different kind of way. To really tell stories in a different kind of way. And not, really just to see what happens, not really to transform anything in the institution, to really change, make some even structural change. And at least, I mean, it's, it's really, I think, much more, you know, micro than that in terms of working with, um, students of color in particular. Right.

  Rubén: I think you, you make a really, a really excellent point that I think is always important to remember when we're working within, uh, elite institutions and even, you know, universities. Again, understanding universities as, as elite institutions whether they're high-ranking or not. Um, that, that in the end it's important to remember that you're not doing it to change the institution because the institution will get rid of you as soon as, as soon as you start to create too much havoc, the institution just expunge you. And that it's really not necessarily, which is not to say that, I don't, I think the thing that I have to remember, it's not to say that that is, it is impossible, that that change could potentially happen. But to remind oneself that you're not doing it for that reason, because if you're doing it for that reason, you're likely to be really frustrated and, and, and to feel like you, to miss the point that the work that you're doing does matter, because it matters to those young people. That it matters to their, to their outlook. It matters to their trajectory, right? I mean, I think the young people that you work with are a case in point, right? I mean, some of them are still involved with in:cite, or who will remain in in:cite. Clearly that work that you did with them was, was life-affirming and life-shaping. Um, so it doesn't really matter that the institution is still the institution in the end. What matters is the difference that you made in the, in their life, through that work, um, and, and where, where that will lead them.

  Leila: No, thanks for saying that, Rubén. I mean I, we always talk about the subjective shift in YPAR right? And that's really at the heart of it. And I mean, I think doing an elite school YPAR project has the potential just to, potential to shift teachers' understanding of, of who they are and that in the teaching and learning relationship, that's one thing that, that can come out of it. But also just in terms of students' subjectivities, and just, just the humanizing effect of valuing young people's knowledge, even, you know, in an elite school setting where there is so much performance around, like what knowledge is, really counts and who really gets to be human at the end of the day that is so, so harmful um, to, to have to be, to have to navigate, um, as a young person. Um, So I'd say, yeah, the trap is right, not to be doing it for institutional validation either because then you're getting into outcomes. Then it's a whole different kind of level of, of, it's just the reverse, to me the reverse direction of what we're about in terms of trying for instance, structural change or validation. I'd be curious to hear more about your own shift away from working with elite schools.

  Rubén: I always find it helpful to see, to witness the mechanisms by which, you know, we've made references before, the mechanisms through which institutions uh, expel projects and, and work like ours. I find it useful to see it, because then I can anticipate it, but also because I think it's an important part of understanding how they work. So, you know, a couple of years ago I wrote that piece, you know, Elite Entanglements, where I sort of talk about how, how the school where I did my dissertation, tried to get, tried to censor my work. And, and, and I ultimately decided to actually write about the very thing that the school that, I wrote a paper about the thing that the school didn't want me to say, you know, um, because I understood that what was at stake in that situation was the very mechanism through which institutions like these, uh, work to preserve their integrity. And I think that in our case, there was so many moments in our experience that clearly illustrated that, right? The way that the institution tried to, uh, appropriate your work. You know, for example, we haven't really talked about that here, but that was one of those dimensions in which the institution sought to silence you by simply taking your work and not crediting you. But there are these subtle institutional mechanisms that are in place to ensure the integrity of the institution when things like this happen without, without necessarily sacrificing - and that's not the right word - but without necessarily exposing. Because you know they're shrouded, they're shrouded in, in claims around confidentiality and privacy and, and they're shrouded in subtlety, right? This is, this is so much of how elite status works, is through subtlety. Is through what is unspoken, what is unsaid, is through irony. And, and so for me, one of the things that came out of that experience was just being able to see that so that then we can actually name it and write about it. 

  Leila: I'm just thinking about, you know, the, kind of the white-settler drive of erasing to, uh, to replace and how much of that was, was in operation here. Or for example,  the anti-racism work that I tried to do as a teacher. So before coming to this work, right, I was an elite school teacher, um, high school teacher and Director of Equity and Diversity, and constantly at odds with, you know, what can I actually do in this space? And, you know, just the, the cognitive dissonance, the experience of leaving that space, driving to OISE, downtown, driving from you know, Oakville to OISE sitting in George Dei's class and driving back to the school, crying basically to negotiate being in, in these two spaces. But in any case, one thing that I found, so a couple of years later, when I was researching elite schools for my, for my dissertation, I did work in the archives because these schools keep impeccable archives, um, as part of their, their claim to elite status. And, and there's all kinds of fascinating things in there. And that's another thing that I would encourage any elite school teacher who's, who's doing, well, any research on elite schools, YPAR included, is to go in there because they don't even know what's in there. And you will find things that are, that really tell a story through presence and absence about how race operates in those spaces. And one of the things that I found was that, well, there was no record of any of the work that I did on race, on race, you know, anti-racism at the school. And that was also my own fault, I wasn't thinking about an archive, I wasn't thinking about, right, how, like how this work might live institutionally in the future. Um, but that was just one way in which I came to understand a little bit of the erasure. And what, where does this go? What happens to these things that, that you build, right? And a couple of years later it was already gone. And my position, the person who replaced me in my position was a white woman. So just thinking about that, that erase-to-replace kind of drive of these institutions.

  Rubén: Well, that's, I think that's in a, in a sense, there's the irony, right? On the one hand, these places keep impeccable archives, on the other, these are machines of forgetting, right? To use, to borrow from Cesaire you know, Cesaire says colonialism is a machine of forgetting. Um, and, and this is how, this is how this works. These are machines of forgetting and, um, that, uh, is a willful ignorance, right? To go back to something we sort of talked about before that, that willful ignorance relies on the mechanisms of forgetting. Um, and I think that interestingly though, uh, so, because these institutions so easily forget that kind of work, it also means that despite the expulsion, they come back. There's like, "Oh, we want to do this work". And it's like, "Seriously, you want to do this again? Because we did this already and you didn't like it". But they forgot because they didn't keep record. Right? And because again, because it is so fundamental to how they think of themselves as institutions, right? Because, because these elite schools are so fundamentally, uh, uh, attached to their identities as liberal institutions, part of that forgetting is that it allows them to keep claiming that they do that work. Right? So they, they expunged, this one project that got too close, but then two years later they're doing the same thing. "Hey, can you come and do and do this?" You know, I mean, I, I think I even, we saw, I'm pretty sure it was Appleby, actually. I, I got an email from someone at Appleby who wanted me to talk to their Visual Art Faculty. And I was thinking, "Wow, there it is again", you know, like, because again, they're, it's a, it's a funny, I'm saying it might, it might be worth a kind of writing about that, because these elite institutions on the one hand... I mean, this happens at UofT too, right? Um, these moments come up and these moments of crisis come up, uh, and the institution survives them. And it, in effect, actually in a way surviving it, it, it almost like it reassures them, you know. "See we survived it, we must be so liberal". Um, I don’t know, I mean and maybe actually to your to your question about my, how I found myself moving away from that, I just realized that it was going to keep repeating itself and I didn't want to participate. I just didn't want to participate in that repetition. And I think, you know, for me, like there were, there were two things that I needed to accomplish, uh, in the, in the work that I was doing with elites. One, one was sociological and political, right? Exposing the mechanisms through which these institutions ensure their status. And I think I did that. And then the other one was about myself. It was about making sense of my own, my own subjectivity as an, as a, as an elite, as a, as a member of these institutions, as a participant in these institutions, uh, you know, as someone who, as a child had to navigate the, the elite, the context of my elite, paternal white, urbane family, and my, my, my working class black, um, uh, rural, uh, maternal family and moving between those spaces. So for me, uh, although I didn't realize it at the time, uh, doing that work was personal and political as, as everything is. And I think I, once I, once I made sense of that, I was ready to move on. I was like, okay, let's, let's go for the next thing. You know, what's the next lesson, you know? Um, and I think that's important when we're doing this, where we have to remember, always have that moment of reflection of realizing this isn't just political. There's always something personal that we're working through. Um, because if we don't do that, then we don't, then we just keep banging ourselves against the same wall in the same way. Then we keep forgetting and then it's, then it's on us. Right? I mean, if we're the ones that keep forgetting, and keep repeating, you know, go through that repetition, then it's on us. Uh, and that's on us.

  Music

  
  Host: Thank you so much for joining us on this eleventh episode of the WhyPAR Podcast, marking our first year anniversary. This conversation, Leila and I explored approaches to YPAR within schools that can be both restorative and sometimes subversive, as well as the tensions that arise when we’re trying to do both. I hope that the episode inspired you to think about the values that you bring to this work, and how different institutions both support and undermine those values when doing YPAR research in schools. Here at the YRL, we’re working on an amazing lineup of guests for upcoming episodes. We hope that you enjoyed the first eleven and we’re looking forward to sharing more ideas with powerful YPAR practitioners and participants from around the world in this upcoming year. See you next time!

Details

This episode features conversation between Dr. Leila Angod, Assistant Professor in the Childhood and Youth Studies Program at Carleton University, and a former postdoctoral fellow at the Youth Research Lab with podcast host Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández, a Professor here at OISE, the Director of the Youth Research Lab, and one of the Co-Producers of The Why PAR podcast. In this episode, Leila and Rubén discuss the challenges of doing YPAR within the context of elite institutions. They discuss themes including using YPAR to subvert schooling, the ethics of negotiating youth knowledge dissemination, elite institutions as mechanisms of erasure and forgetting, and YPAR’s impact as subjective rather than institutional change. 

Dr. Leila Angod (she/her) is Assistant Professor in the Childhood and Youth Studies Program at Carleton University’s Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies. Her research examines how schools invite young people to enact racial and colonial orders, and how youth engage, resist, and refuse these invitations. Leila examines the methodological, political, and ethical possibilities and constraints of using yPAR to create feminist, anti-racist communities for students of colour. She is the co-founder of the Youth Research Lab’s youth-led journal, in:cite. Her current yPAR project explores the making of Afro-Asian girls’ collectives as humanizing spaces that counter the violence of schooling and Canadian white supremacy. Leila is writing a young adult novel that mobilizes speculative fiction to explore themes of colonialism, race, and feminist community-making in the context of Canadian elite schools.

This episode was hosted and directed by Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández, produced by Naima Raza and Ruben Gaztambide-Fernandez, and supported by Youth Research Lab assistants Oliver Thompson and Madeleine Ross.

References and further reading

Gaztambide-Fernández, Rubén. 2014. “Elite entanglements and the demand for a radically un/ethical position: the case of Wienie Night.”, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 28(9): 1229-1147.

in:cite journal: https://incitejournal.org/index.php/incite 

Vijenthira, Shangi, Rifaa Ali, and Erin Manogaran. 2018. “Unaffirmative Actions: Lessons on Refusal, Racism, and Youth Research.” in:cite journal 1. https://incitejournal.org/index.php/incite/article/view/28880

Episode 10: On Knowledge from Identity and Place - A Conversation between Maddy Ross and Artist-Researchers Pree Rehal, Bert Whitecrow, Ayrah Taerb, Ammarah Syed, and Jahmal Nugent

• Read Transcript

  Citation:

  Ross, Madeleine. ““Art Is Research”: On Knowledge from Identity and Place - A Conversation between Maddy Ross and Artist-Researchers Pree Rehal, Bert Whitecrow, Ayrah Taerb, Ammarah Syed, and Jahmal Nugent.” Produced by Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández and Sarah Switzer at The Youth Research Lab. The WhyPAR Podcast. November 10, 2021. Podcast, MP3 audio, https://youthresearchlab.org/whypar

  Note on attribution:

  When citing the ideas and/or when quoting material from this podcast, please attribute the ideas to the speaker(s) and, whenever possible, note the timestamp or the line where the words quoted can be found. We recommend that you draw on the style conventions typically used for “secondary sources,” such as “quoted in” (Chicago Style) or “as cited in” (APA), and that you cite the source as listed above.

  Host: Welcome to The WhyPAR podcast, a project of the Youth Research Lab at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

  Music

  Host: In the WhyPAR podcast, youth participatory action research practitioners discuss the ethical dimensions of conducting YPAR. In our podcast, we explore issues of co-leading YPAR projects, building relationships, power dynamics, and sharing our work together. The Youth Research Lab is located in Toronto on the traditional territories of the Huron-Wendat, the Seneca, and most recently, the Mississaugas of the Credit River. 

  Pree: One of the things I really appreciate and learned about being part of this project is just that yeah, the fact that making art is research, very much like writing poetry can be research or painting can be research or planting can be research.

  Host: Welcome everyone! My name is Maddy, and I’m a co-host of the WhyPAR Podcast. I’m a PAR practitioner and currently a research assistant here at the Youth Research Lab. 

  In today’s conversation, I’m joined by five young artists living in T’karonto who have been exploring their creative practice as a form of research since the beginning of the pandemic. Pree Rehal, Bert Whitecrow, Ayrah Taerb, Ammarah Syed, and Jahmal Nugent are all part of an arts-based research project called Making With Place, where they have created public art installations and online exhibits to illuminate resistant visions of community and culture. This work is a collaboration between graduate students at York University and the community arts enterprise SKETCH Working Arts. I strongly encourage you, our listeners, to visit their website to visually experience the artist-researchers’ individual work and explore their online journal-zine at makingwithplace.ca. The website also details how you can experience new Making With Place Public Art Projects, launching this fall as part of the City of Toronto’s Year of Public Art.

  In this episode, we discuss what it means to consider one’s artistic practice as research, and the tensions that emerge between using research as a tool of resistance and its colonial legacy. The artist-researchers reflect on marginality, identity and place as integral sources of knowledge and knowing, and the creative necessity of place-making and community for disrupting dominant narratives and knowledge production. 

  This conversation was recorded over Zoom. Please be advised that there is some explicit language in this episode.

  And with that, let’s jump in! 

  Host: All right. Welcome everyone. And thank you so much for joining us today on this episode of the WhyPAR Podcast, Pree, Bert, Ayrah, Ammarah and Jahmal. I'd love to start by having you introduce yourselves and tell us a bit about what brought you to this project.

  Ayrah: My name is Ayrah Taerb. I'm a recording artist and executive producer. And what brought me here is my desire to make the process of culture-making across different classes, more equitable. Especially in a city where we recognize that the microscopes that we're under, mean that what happens in the now affects the future, not just for generations of people, but also for generations of funding, which I think is huge.

  Jahmal: Hi, my name is, Jahmal. What brought me here… or, I'm a photographer, videographer and dancer. What brought me here was… kind of like say, it was an opportunity.

  Pree: I'm Pree, Pree Rehal. I use they/them pronouns. And what brought me into this project was seeing a poster looking for artist- researchers. And I was really interested because I have a background in formal research and also some community-based research like for my masters and afterwards. The last few years of my life had been very focused on community arts, but I hadn't really had those two things overlap as like artist, researcher, being an artist-researcher. And so that's kind of what brought me into this. 

  Ammarah: Yeah. Hi, my name is Ammarah. Ammarah Syed. Artist name Ammarican. I am a wellness artist, calligrapher, photographer, performer, a collager. And I loop all my mediums back into healing and internal work and being ourselves, I am a wellness artist. And I think, my work is centered around the place that, caring for ourselves and as communities on the margins is radical work. And I think what brought me here is a kind of desire to, kind of not, turn research on its head a little bit and speak to our identities as culture creators on this land, T’karonto. And, and speak to our identities in this work, because I believe that we are underrepresented and our voices are essential to this culture that we live, breathe, and create. 

  Bert: Hello, my name is Bert. I am a two-spirited artist from Seine River First Nation. Um, my mother is Anishinaabe Ojibwe, and my father is Irish-Scottish. I've worked in community arts now for about four years. I am part of an Indigenous collective called Weaver and Mend where we've built and designed outdoor gardens slash installation spaces. We've also facilitated cultural workshops and have hosted online art shows and events as well as in person. I'm currently attending the Indigenous Visual Culture program at OCAD University. I'm a multidisciplinary artist. I work with a lot of, I guess, natural materials as well as materials that hold semblance to my culture as well. I also work with video and installation. I also have knowledge on, I guess, cultivating plant life and permaculture and, outdoor design and garden spaces. 

  Host: So, I'm wondering if you can tell me a little bit about the Making With Place project and the work that you've been up to over the past year?

  Ayrah: Based on the shared experiences that I've been a part of, the Making With Place project is about researching and documenting the creative necessity of place making. I say necessity because as someone who commits creatively to a concept or a calling, sacrifices have to be made that very, very, very definitively and objectively affect livelihood, stability, survival, these kind of things. Among all mediums, you know, the essential thesis that I was presented to by Phyllis, was commissioned to be a part of this project, was the reality that, a full-time artist must develop the capacity and skills for placemaking in order to survive. Which I have now after a year or so of studiously observing, you know, that idea, deem to be true, you know? Because as a painter or a rapper or a dancer or a cinematographer, you know, it's very rare that after four months in the field, you have your own studio, you have your own office, you have your own home, you know, you're in board rooms and you're on tour, or you're on set full time, paid salary. You know, everybody's got a come-up story where they're couch surfing or living on the street or playing for audiences, you know, making lunch out of an old Tim Horton's cup, or, you know, doing what have you in order to survive functionally enough to create the art that takes them to where they, where they got to essentially. And in that, you know, in-between phase that, you know, society offers first to, as, you know, the, the plight or a conditions of the starving artist, placemaking is  a huge element and a huge necessity in terms of making it happen and making sustainable until the quote unquote big break. 

  Bert: I think for me as an artist, I feel that process is just as important as the final outcome. So, I think like the process of creating, of learning, of having those conversations… to me, that that matters more, if not an equal amount as what the final outcome is, because it is, it is like a learning experience and I think at the end of it, you don't exactly know what the final goal is without all the in-between steps to that. So, process is like a very important part of my art making. 

  Ammarah: For  me, what ended up happening with Making with Place project is I, in the, during the pandemic, I started working, frontline as a community and a harm reduction worker at a COVID-19 isolation site for home, homeless folks. Basically, these folks were on the streets, and, the City of Toronto is essentially worried about people being vectors for COVID, if we're being honest with the blunt truth of it all. And sent them to these hotels to quarantine, where they would get tested, and if they test positive, or they’re, while they were waiting for the test results, they would quarantine in a hotel. So, I worked at one of these hotels, and that's the perspective I was coming from with Making With Place, especially like, cause that was a place that I would, I think, well, everyone was kind of in, everything was in lockdown. I was, I was working at this hotel. So that was kind of a place where me and, I think for me it was like, it became the story of what that entailed and what it entailed to be traveling through the city and witnessing COVID-19 in the midst of, in the midst of everyone being home, me being like out and travelling to work and seeing what's happening in the streets and things like that. And so, positionality also like played in for me, it was like, what something that drew me and something that like, was something, it informed my analysis. I am, I'm South Asian, originally Bihari, and as a peoples that were, the mountainous regions of India were earlier a home too. It was like a really interesting analysis for me. Because I've just witnessed so many different things in the course of my lifespan, especially in what we label as poverty. And so, it was a definitely a very critical lens, that I would hope is intersectionally informed, particularly as someone who was born in the States. 

  Jahmal: I think for my practice, it was very much about… well, initial, I, I kind of have to say, because it definitely shifted throughout, like over time. But definitely, it was capturing. Like capturing what was happening in the moment, capturing past events and then kind of capturing what was, what was the effect of that previous event, whether that was a week or a few days from, it happening. I definitely, there's definitely have been some like some insights that I've come across through doing that. And also like being, being able to do that with more intention kind of brought up a lot more questions in terms of like me capturing, like, or taking a photo of something or recording something. Yeah, there was a lot more intention to it and also a lot more attention to, or intention towards what I was capturing and why I was capturing it. 

  Host: The next question I wanted to ask is, what are some of the goals guiding the Making With Place project, and how did these shape and inform your process and approach as an artist-researcher?

  Ayrah: In terms of the goals, now this is objectively speaking. The last thing I remember us agreeing upon is deciding what goals are worthy to have. I don't mean that in a way that is vague or redundant. I think what I mean is intersectionality necessitates facilitating conversations across differentials and power created by race, gender, class, sexual orientation, privilege, et cetera, right? And, you know, based on the myriad of intersections that are possible with all of those state induced differences, we'll say, what's important changes. You know, what is important to, you know, a civilian in Regent Park is completely different to what is important to a civilian in Forest Hill. Now, when, if we're speaking from a lens that you know, is critical of classism, we'll give the nod to Regent Park. However, that's not to say that Regent Park knows what the world needs or even what Toronto needs.

  So, Making With Place is essentially looking at, you know, the necessity of coming together, no matter what corner of the GTA or Canada or the world you're from, to decide what the implications of the objective truth are. The objective truth insofar as the community arts sector in the city goes, and this is subjective. However, I think has been objectively agreed upon by everyone here, the way that the resources are distributed is kind of bullshit. And that's a conversation that involves everybody, because even though, you know, Forest Hill doesn't experience the marginalization that creates the art, they're funding it in a sense, you know. So, I, and I'm keeping it this vague because that's how it was presented to me. This is an attempt, this is a pilot designed to do the work and the research to have consistent enough conversations, to resource people, to actually make suggestions that are viable enough to try sustaining, if resources are provided to make that possible for a time.

   Ammarah: Yeah. I, I, I think it's really important to mention that like, like I don't identify as, as youth, or particularly even like a researcher. And I think a big part of that is that that is funder language, that is, that there is a motivated interest in that, that is that is why, our particular government, funds certain things. I identify as a, an artist, a culture-creator, and, a community, community, worker, community animator, yeah, a culture creator. And so, yeah, I, I think the project, for me, like really became about highlighting those pieces and speaking into, speaking back into the systems of power that we, live, breathe, and exist in every day. In a, in a way that is not often highlighted, we are fed a very specific narrative of how society is, how the world is and given at how we are supposed to be. And I think those things are, I think the world is slowly becoming more and more aware of how those things are not the realistic representation at all. And how it's important to subvert things, and share our perspectives, share who we are and how we experience things, and how we see things that are actually happening on the ground every day.

  Ayrah: I raised my hand. I'm only gonna say this because, I think it's big. Especially since, you know, we're having a conversation that is in many ways being hosted by a post-secondary education institution. What, what was said about research, and, you know, funder language, I think a big implication of those sentiments is the reality that, research implies that you don't have the cultural context. People who've experienced things don't need to research them. However, oftentimes they need the language and the formats available, made available by research to document them, which in the case of marginalized art and culture making, are usually things that are inaccessible, irrespective of how intelligent and the necessity of acknowledging those implications in my humble opinion, would, bust the post-secondary educational institution wide open in a way that would actually create, dare I say it, smarter human beings. 

  Host: Yeah, I'm really hearing you talk about how your creative practice is a way to communicate and articulate these ways of knowing that you practice in your life and know that contest these dominant narratives that shape place and the bodies in these spaces. And how this, this project was an opportunity to use art as a way of contesting these things. 

  Ammarah: I think that a big part of me stepping into the project was having like a healthy skepticism around or what we're actually doing here. And is this, is this actually using the master's tools to like, in the words of Audre Lorde, are using the master's tools to dismantle the master's house? And, I think that Phyllis and Charlotte were like, actually, we want to hear more of that perspective and how you really feel in the arts about that, like in your work? And I was like, all right, I'm in.

  Jahmal: I think I was just straight up skeptical about it. I was like, um… research projects… like anytime in my life when I've ever heard something about a research project involving like humans, I'm like, ‘Ah, I don't know, ’ like, ‘I don't like the sound of this.’ And especially once it gets into, I feel like the, yeah, like I it's weird. Like, I, I think there's, there's one thing about like a physical aspect of it. And then there's another thing when it's like a mental aspect of it. And I'm like, for me, I just kind of pictured, I was like, ‘Oh, are they kind of be like picking our brains for like information or tryna get us to like, act a certain way?’ Like, what is this research part? Like, are they just going to be like researching our daily like activities and what we do, and then kind of coming up with some, like, answer to how we like go about life, which is totally opposite of what like you actually do. So yeah, I was just kinda like, okay, well. But then at the same time, because it was in a way connected to like   some folks that yeah, some folks that I trust very much. I was like, okay, you know, I'm going to go into this with like an open mind while also like kind of being cautious of what it entails, like what it's about. Yeah. And then I feel like as, as like, literally as I think, like maybe there was one time we had a, I guess kind of like a, it was like a day where, it was like a breakdown as to kind of what a more, a more better explanation of what the project was about. I was like, okay, this sounds kind of better, but I was still wasn't, I was still unsure as to what exactly it was about. Until, it wasn't until like day one, I think the first Zoom, the first zoom chat where the clarification was fully, fully there. And I was like, oh, okay, this, this is, this is kind of cool. Like research project led by like the artists. Yeah, I thought that was pretty dope.

  Pree: Yeah. I can speak to this as well. I previously mentioned how for me, I wasn’t invited into the project. I haven't been staff at Sketch before. I'm just someone that frequents space as a participant. And I, I applied for the artist researcher position after seeing a poster. And like, I often talk about how, like, I grew up really poor. I grew up with a lot of food insecurity and so it's really important to me that I, alongside like other community members are paid for their work. And so for me seeing an artist-researcher position that pays, I was like, you know, whatever it is, like, I'm going to just apply for it and see what happens. And, so because I applied into it and there was an interview process, I remember walking in the room and seeing Charlotte and Phyllis who are both white women and being like, Jesus fucking Christ. Like what have I gotten myself into? Especially because as someone who has a background in academia, like I know that it's often white folks with magnifying glasses holding it up to historically oppressed people. And, yeah, I was also definitely a little bit nervous once I got there and yeah, but through conversation, I realized that like, you know, like maybe this might be okay. Because yeah, much like Ammarah, I felt, I felt that it was necessary to be honest about where I was at in my thinking and yeah, it worked out okay. Kind of like Jahmal as well when I, when we hopped on that initial zoom. Because again, we weren't able to meet in person because the pandemic literally started right when the project did, I saw a few familiar faces like Jahmal and Jess, and I was like, you know what okay, this might be okay.

  And, yeah, so definitely some, some questions. I mean, also even with, coming into this podcast opportunity, like when we were at originally received information, I, yeah, even though I'm really familiar with community-based research or like, I've never heard of the term YPAR, I had so many questions and like, I understand what it is. I understand that it's like youth participatory action research. But I just feel like, even the jargon in itself is a barrier. Especially if like me as someone with research experience, couldn't decode that and wasn't familiar with that. And, yeah, like a lot of the documentation that we received, it didn't really, I just felt like it wasn't really spelled out for us in plain language. And I really had to like dig for it to figure out like what it was we were being asked to do, what the connection was. And, yeah. So I think for valid reasons, a lot of us come into this work with a lot of, speculation and concern for like what we're being really asked to do. And, yeah. I'll pass it over to Bert. 

  Bert: Yeah. I agree with a lot of what everyone has said. Coming into the project too, I, I truly didn't really know what the whole thing was about. Even though Phyllis had explained it. I just, I didn't like really grasp, like, I, I feel like I'm visual. Like I needed it like an outline, like an agenda of like what we would be doing, like what we would be talking about. But I think once coming into it, it was like, so open that we kind of created the space that we navigated and we, we chose what we wanted to talk about. And there was so much going on at that time, too. Like everything had just gone into lockdown, there were protests. So there was, there was so much happening as there is every summer. But yeah, I think going into the project too, as an Indigenous person, obviously, like the funders being two white women, I felt, I just, I didn't like, you know, you don't want to be tokenized in a way as a person, especially when it comes to like, I guess talking about the land and people are looking at you for answers in a way that you don't have answers to their questions.

  And I definitely speak up whenever I feel uncomfortable in like a situation like that. I don't allow people to tokenize me or like, look for these answers or look to me to say what they're doing is okay. You know? So yeah, I think that was kind of my fear. That's, that's been my fear, I think, entering like different spaces and presenting myself, like I'm Indigenous, I'm from here. This is all the work I've done. And I think it's like, yeah, you get asked these questions that you're like, I don't have answers to these. Maybe you should, you know, like hire like an Elder and consult with that person for these questions that you want to ask. As far as research, like, I wasn't exactly sure what type of research they were talking about. Like, cause there's research in the academic sense, you're creating like a bibliography and like all that stuff being in university, you know, like research was presented to you in like a very formal way. But I think, yeah, like research in itself, like in your culture, in your upbringing, in your past, like that, those are all like very personal experiences of research, I think. And they're all very individual as well. So, I feel like that's what we all kind of brought to the table was our own experiences of where we were coming from and our own identity with place. But yeah, that's the end of that thought.

  Ammarah: Yeah. Just, just speaking to that, what you're saying about like organized formal research, as well as what Bert and Jahmal mentioned, Bert and Jahmal, and, Pree mentioned rather. And Ayrah as well. Well, yeah, I, I have a first furthermore to mention positionality. I have, I have a Bachelor's Degree in, Global Health and Environment, as well as community work, from the University of Michigan. And in my upper-level research classes, we've very often had to do like these kind of case studies around things. And it was extremely aggravating because these researchers quote unquote, would like go into communities and eventually in finally, in what like 2015 finally got to a point where like, ‘Oh, we've found that we gained the most success in these, all these measures of progress  in the communities that we work in when we just asked the community what they need.’ And, it's just, it's just such a, I feel like it was such a, it was such an intense, it was such a revealing moment in my career. And in all my careers, career choices of like, actually like, clearly this people don't know what they're doing. And, we, I feel like us, the communities have known what the community needs for time. It's like, you just literally have to listen to the people who live in it, it would be Elders that exist in our communities and things like that. And, like I feel like it was just so, it was just so aggravating to be in these spaces with these people being like ‘We’re going to study you’. But it's like, actually, no. I think we need more different perspectives. I think we need culture creators. I think we need people with intersectional identities speaking into this. 

  Host: And how do you feel now about thinking about research in your role, or assuming the identity of researcher or artist-researcher in your practice? Has that changed throughout your engagement in this project? Or do you still consider art as a form of research in itself?

  Ayrah: No. I feel very confident saying that for me in mine, you know, this is not just to me influencing ideas. Every artist that I know and respect, art is not research. It's observation, because research necessitates due diligence in an arena of life, or human happenings, or even if not human happenings on the Planet Earth that you weren't there for. You know? And if you're making art about it, we we'd hope that you were there. And so, by virtue of that in and of itself, art can’t be research if it's, if it's research, it’s not art.

  Pree: I definitely respect what Ayrah said, but I think for me, I feel differently about it. I, I feel like research doesn't have to always have, like white supremacist motivations. And, I think one of the things I really appreciate and learned about being part of this project is just that… yeah, the fact that making art is research, very much like, writing poetry can be research or painting can be research or planting can be research. Because I think you learned something about yourself, or you tap into certain parts of yourself. And I'm not a writer, but I strongly believe that like writing is one of the most revealing research methods. Cause I feel like when you write it just, I think it reveals so many things that you're holding onto, that you haven't maybe yet spelled out, whether it's like in the format of journaling or even just like, if you're doing some kind of formal work. I think that, yeah. There's something so, there can be something so magical about like creating things. And I think that, I think that even when it's just like a smiley face, I think that things have meaning and purpose and yeah, I don't think that, I don't think that research always has to be, tainted by institutions or, it's fucked up history and yeah. And I think that that's why I'm kind of like more of a proponent for community-based research and arts-based research. Because I think that it can be so different than, triangulated research with focus groups and surveys and interviews and whatnot. Like I'm very much more someone that advocates for community consultations, and art-based learning, when I am a researcher on a project as well. And yeah, and like I said, it's, it's really cool being able to be compensated for things that you're already doing, like maintaining your arts practice. It's really cool to just be able to like gather and chat about what you're doing and what you're making and what you're thinking about making, and to have that affirmed, in a way that may not otherwise be affirmed for certain communities. Yeah. I think I'll leave it at that and I'll also pass it over to Bert cause I see a hand. 

  Bert: Hi. Yeah. I think I really agree with what Pree just said about that process of art-making, being research, because I think that's how I look at, look at research as well. And I've had some really great Indigenous profs at OCAD who, when it's come to like a research project, they've, they've been like, ‘Oh, you can speak with like your family. You can speak with your friends. And that, that counts as research.’ Like you don't necessarily have to have like academic texts or all like all like quoting like quotes of people, but just those conversations and those generational stories that have been passed down, that qualifies as research in my art-making practice as well. So yeah, I do agree with that.

  Jahmal: Kind of want to echo off what, yeah what Pree and Bert were saying or saying. Yeah, I think, just the idea, I know for me, just the idea of like, what research can be, was I think very… Yeah, it was, it was, I feel like it was a realization that I definitely needed to refresh in my, in like in my mind. Yeah, like I, I always thought about it that way, but it's like, I feel like as you go, like, as you go about life and as you worry about whatever and like the world as the world moves, you kind of, it, like, I feel like that realization kind of diminishes, or it gets weaker and weaker. And I think the, this was kind of like a wakeup call to remind me that like, ‘Oh, you know, like, yeah, like they're, they're like, this is like asking family members about things or like Elders, like these are all like, this is all research and it's not necessarily just like tied to like going to a library and reading a book.’ Yeah. Yeah, like I just think for me, yeah, it was just the, the realization of, or kind of like, yeah, the refreshment of realizing that, I guess.

  Host: Yeah. There's a very real tension between what institutions gatekeep as legitimate knowledge and knowledge production. But in reality, research is happening everywhere and always has been happening everywhere, especially in placemaking and cultural production like what's happening in this project. 

  Ammarah: I think it's essential here to mention like the, the, the influences of like capitalism and colonialism, the patriarchal systems of power that we live in and what, how they have created research and, and how it's, it's such a… it's been a tool of subjugation for, for time. We're going into this for a land across North America, as well as like several other places in the world, so many, so many other lands of, ‘Oh, we're going to study these people’ and we are going to, you know, like pretty much objectify, commodify, their culture, their tools, their, their lives. And how it consistently is still, is something that still happens and how each of us are, in our identities, in our work in the community taking back that narrative and actually saying actually, ‘No, that's not, that's not the “research” quote unquote, research that we ascribe to, we ascribe to the generations of knowledge passed down to us by our ancestors, by, by our land, by our people, by our culture, by our artists, by us as we exist who, we are in this land that has been stewarded, you know, by indigenous people for, for generations. You know, it's in a reframing of narrative. And so if anything, Making With Place has really driven that point home for me of like, actually, we don't have to ascribe to that narrative. Of course we do, because we live in these systems of power, but in this project, we don't have to ascribe to that narrative anymore. 

  Host: Thank you so much for joining us on this episode of the WhyPAR Podcast. This important and provocative conversation explored so many dimensions of research ethics, artistic practice, and activism, and illustrates the imperative of coming together to interrogate both how and where we locate knowledge through the complexities of identity and place. The generous reflections shared by Pree, Bert, Ayrah, Ammarah, and Jahmal are just the tip of the iceberg of the wisdom they have to share, and I would be remiss if I didn’t conclude this episode with another invitation for you to visit makingwithplace.ca to experience the incredible work they have created. ext goes here

Details

This episode features five artist-researchers from the Making With Place Research Project (MWP), a collaborative initiative in T’karonto between York University graduate students Charlotte Lombardo and Phyllis Novak and SKETCH, an award-winning community arts program. Pree Rehal, Bert Whitecrow, Ayrah Taerb, Ammarah Syed, and Jahmal Nugent are all established young artists who came together during the COVID-19 pandemic to explore and create placemaking art installations and activations. MWP recently launched an online journal-zine at makingwithplace.ca, and four exciting immersive and interactive public art projects taking place across T’karonto throughout fall 2021 and spring 2022. In this conversation, the artist-researchers discuss the epistemologies of identity and place that guide their creative practice, and their perspectives on whether art is or can be research. They also reflect on their initial skepticism of the MWP research and how they subvert colonial ways of knowing and knowledge production as artists, place-makers, and culture creators. 

 Priya “Pree” Rehal Pree is an artist educator currently based in Tkaronto, originally from Tiohtià:ke. They’re the children of immigrant settlers from Punjab. Pree’s work centres their identity as a queer, non-binary, trans, disabled, fat, and racialized individual. They have an interdisciplinary arts practice under the name: Sticky Mangos and co-founded the Non-Binary Colour Collective. You can follow their arts practice on Instagram: @StickyMangos or on Twitter (@preezilla).

 Roberta “Bert" Whitecrow Bert is a 2 Spirited, Anishinaabe multidisciplinary artist from Seine River First Nation. Their work explores themes of healing, preserving, and practicing ancestral knowledge. As a conceptual artist, Bert works with a variety of media, often combining traditional and unconventional materials. They are a founding member of the Weave and Mend collective, which is a mixed Indigenous collective that focuses on building relationships with Indigenous communities through art making workshops, facilitated conversation and permaculture. Bert is currently attending OCAD University in the Indigenous Visual Cultures program.

Ayrah Taerb Is The Founder Of Kundalini Kurrency Khansultancy; A Collective Of Creative Professionals & Administrators Who Seek To Spread The Values Of Self Determination & Co Operative Economics Among The Global Black Community. As An Executive Producer, Creative Consultant, and Embodiment Instructor; He Is Equipped With The Skills & Expertise Required To Develop Artists, Mentor Professionals, and Responsibly Condition Children & Youth To Exist Within The Context Of A Transcendental Society.

 Ammarah Syed is an interdisciplinary artist interested in documenting how modern day discourses such as capitalism, colonialism, and various power dynamics have developed to inform mental health, identity and sexuality. Ammarican explores how words among other factors, influence emotion, culture and politics. AmmariCan’t Even, Ammarah’s performance alter-ego, likes to deconstruct and explore the little boxes our society and our minds like to put us in. Both of their processes involve sitting on their ass for 8 weeks (contemplating of course) & then creating something all in one go. They aspire to use the arts as a means to transform oppression into change. www.ammarican.com (@ammarican)

 Jahmal Nugent (aka NINJAHMAL) Visual media artist Jahmal Nugent, born, raised and based in Toronto, primarily focuses on digital photography and videography to create, but sometimes experiments with physical mediums. Jahmal’s work explores seeing the ordinary as extraordinary, and reminding us of how beautiful and amazing elements we take for granted can be.

This episode was hosted and directed by Madeleine Ross, produced by Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández and Sarah Switzer, and supported by Youth Research Lab Assistants Naima Raza and Oliver Thompson.

Art and Further Reading

We encourage listeners to visit the Making With Place Digital Journal-Zine at https://www.makingwithplace.ca

Art by the Artist-Researchers: 

Acknowledge Place Honour Spirit, Bert Whitecrow

• Video Projection with Poetic Narrative: https://www.makingwithplace.ca/2021/06/18/acknowledge-place-honour-spirit/

 Grounding and Activating, Ammarah Syed (@ammarican)

• Photography and Poetry Mural Installation: https://www.makingwithplace.ca/2021/06/15/grounding-and-activating/

CRIP COLLAB, Pree Rehal (@stickymangos) 

• Curated zine featuring works of racialized disabled 2SLGBTQ artists: https://www.makingwithplace.ca/2021/06/09/crip-collab/

• Making With Place blog, https://prehal.com/blogs/blog/making-with-place

 Indica Omega, Ayrah Taerb

• Performance Piece, ‘Untitled’: https://www.makingwithplace.ca/2021/06/08/untitled/

• MWP Public Art Project Indica Omega: https://www.sketch.ca/publicart/indica/

 Elements, Chasing Fire, Animal Crossings, Jahmal Nugent (@ninjahmal)

• Three visual pieces designed to take you on a journey within our own city: https://www.makingwithplace.ca/2021/06/10/elements-catching-fire-and-animal-crossings/

Making With Place Podcast:

On November 16, the MWP project will also be launching their own podcast series! Check out the teaser here:

Episode 9: On Community-Engaged Programming with Lil Sis (Alma Ahmed, Suzanna Maharaj, Rayan Saied, Belul Kidane, and Kamilah Apong) and Naima Raza

• Read Transcript

  Citation:

  Raza, Naima. “How to Empower Themselves in an Industry Not Meant for Them”: A Conversation on Community-Engaged Programming Between Lil Sis (Alma Ahmed, Suzanna Maharaj, Rayan Saied, Belul Kidane, and Kamilah Apong) and Naima Raza.” Produced by Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández and Sarah Switzer at The Youth Research Lab. The WhyPAR Podcast. October 27th, 2021. Podcast, MP3 audio, https://youthresearchlab.org/whypar

  Note on attribution:

  When citing the ideas and/or when quoting material from this podcast, please attribute the ideas to the speaker(s) and, whenever possible, note the timestamp or the line where the words quoted can be found. We recommend that you draw on the style conventions typically used for “secondary sources,” such as “quoted in” (Chicago Style) or “as cited in” (APA), and that you cite the source as listed above.

  Host: Welcome to The WhyPAR podcast, a project of the Youth Research Lab at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

  Music

  Host: In the WhyPAR podcast, youth participatory action research practitioners discuss the ethical dimensions of conducting YPAR. In our podcast, we explore issues of co-leading YPAR projects, building relationships, power dynamics, and sharing our work together. The Youth Research Lab is located in Toronto on the traditional territories of the Huron-Wendat, the Seneca, and most recently, the Mississaugas of the Credit River. 

  Kamilah: Community-based intervention is accessibility. It’s liberation. It’s movements. It’s shifting conversations. It’s pushing discourse without having to go through all of the red tape like, of like an academically approved research project.

  Host: Welcome everyone! My name is Naima, and I’m the co-host of the WhyPAR podcast. I am a YPAR practitioner and a graduate assistant at the Youth Research Lab. 

  Today’s episode is with a youth-based group. We are featuring Lil Sis, a grassroots, youth-led, youth-focused artist resource centre. Lil Sis is made up of youth who are queer, not queer, racialized, living in Toronto and the Greater Toronto Area, artists, and many other things. Our conversation today is between myself, and Lil Sis team members -  Alma Ahmed, Suzanna Maharaj, Rayan Saied, Belul Kidane, and Kamilah Apong. 

  During COVID-19, Lil Sis has been providing a lot of online programming. So in this conversation, we are going to be discussing, what does it mean to be a queer, racialized youth artist organization based in Regent Park? What is the importance of community-based research? How does Lil Sis branding challenge heteronormativity and masculinity in the Toronto arts scene?

  This conversation was recorded online on Zoom. And with that, let’s jump in!

  Alma: My name is Alma, I use she/her pronouns and I’m the social media lead for Lil Sis. 

  Rayan: My name is Ryan, I use she/her pronouns, and I am the workshop and open mic lead  for Lil Sis.

  Suzanna: My name is Suzanna. I use she/her pronouns and I’m the admin and resources lead for Lil Sis.

  Belul: Hi, my name is Belul, I use she/pronouns and I also am open mic and workshop lead for Lil Sis.

  Kamilah: hi my name is Kamilah, I use she/her pronouns and I’m the coordinator of Lil Sis.

  Naima: So I’m so excited to chat with you all today. I would love, if you could, if we could get started, by telling me what Lil Sis is all about. 

  Rayan: All right, I got us, let me go ahead. (laughs). So we’re Lil Sis, our little tagline is that we are Lil Sis, we are a grassroots nonprofit organization. We're based in Regent Park, and we provide performance opportunities and workshops for BIPOC and LGBTQI plus youth in Toronto, and the GTA in general, hoping to expand in the future. But yeah that's what we do. Due to COVID, we initially started out as an open mic again based out of Regent Park and hummingbird way back in want to say, 2016, 2015, 2016.

  Kamilah: 2015.

  Rayan: or 2015, there we go. In 2015, so we were doing monthly open mics, at some point that's turned into us leading research on experiences of BIPOC and LGBTQ plus artists in Toronto, and the GTA to understand like. What barriers were there, how to tackle those, and so we came up with our research and shortly after we got a grant and so we we're able to morph into Lil Sis. And we started, we, that also coincided with COVID so unfortunately we had to let go of the open mic component, so far, but. At the moment, we're going hard with the workshops, and we had three so far, and so the workshops are very much focused on kind of like. Not so much on like developing your art craft, but kind of all the skills outside of that that is especially relevant for BIPOC and LGBTQ plus artists related to essentially like. How do you set up for yourself as an artist, how do you make sure that you're getting respected, that you're getting paid appropriately. You know, how to clap back, etc, how to build a portfolio, all of those things, so kind of those skills that are just all around being an artist and that help you succeed in your work in that way, and that is us so far.

  Naima: Awesome. And so is your work, so are all of you from Regent Park and is your working mainly concentrated in Regent Park, or are all of you from the GTA and your work is, spreads across the GTA.

  Rayan: So we are actually. All from Regent Park, well we're all initially from Regent Park, I will say that so. So, unless for, like personally I’ve moved out of Regent Park, you know Kami no longer is in Regent Park, some of us are outside based for school like, for schooling, like Alma lives in Regent Park but she's just, she goes to Queen’s so she is not there right now.

  Rayan: Suzanna, you’re in Regent Park, though?         

  Suzanna: I’m actually, like down the street, I'm like from Bleecker but.

  Alma: What!

  Suzanna: I went to school at Jarvis and everything which is right there.

  Alma: I didn’t know that! (inaudible)

  Rayan: Oh, my God! So yeah, but we're all like very, we all like originated from there, or we live, very close to there so have very close ties to there through school and whatever. So yes.

   Naima: Awesome, awesome and so your work must have been pretty involved in the community right? What did that, what does that mean for you? To be able to do community-based work? I love how your work also has that lens where it is community-centered and it takes into account. What is going on the community, what the needs of the community are, and you're able to deeply engage.

  Alma: I think one need that we learned in our community and just like because we're a youth arts platform and we target normally ages between like 14 to 29 or whatever somebody thinks. A youth is if you're 50 and you believe you are youthful go for it, I believe you, and so, because our stuff is youth-led, we noticed with our open mic beforehand that there was a lack of performing arts spaces for people that wanted to start off their arts in the first place. And so we were like there are so many people that are like I want to be a singer, I want to be a spoken word artist, I just want to play my guitar in front of people and show them what I can do. And also within Regent Park, there's so many other resources that foster art in the first place, there's Art Heart, there's Regent Park School of Music, there's so many other resources so, and so we were like. We have all the resources, but no one knows how to, like mostly, I’m not gonna speak on behalf of everybody, but like we don't have a space that people can perform in. Or, just like an. Just like just the space, like a safer space and so. By creating Hummingbird open mic in the first place, we were like, we're going to get that out of the way. It was literally like with a live band, you had a backup singer, like backup singer ability, if you needed it. Like if you wanted to show off your own song you could, if you just want to speak like a poem about or like a spoken word piece about like your art or any issues you're facing, about your mental health, about racism around the world, oppression, any like any topic was open and the audience was just such a, like it was just a great vibe, the audience was welcoming every single type of art, so I think one of them was just encouraging and having a space for youth artists, especially beginners. To come in and just start to perform and learn how to perform and then with the grant money that we have now, or like, how can we use that and how can. And like with the grant money and the research report, we were finding, we found other issues that like. Youth artists were facing so we're like ‘Okay, we have all these resources within Lil Sis, how can we give back to youth artists, to LGBTQI plus artists, to racialized artists, how can we give that back’, so I think that is like the main motivational aspect of Lil Sis I would say, yeah.

  Naima: I love that. I think there's such a lack of youth spaces within a lot of communities And I think it's so important and it's so wonderful that you created that, like you, created a space for community, for young people to come together. And also, in a way that centers the arts when we live in a society and an educational system where you know we can’t foster our true creative potential. And we can’t engage in that type of skill and intelligence and creativity.

   Kamilah: Alma really highlighted that well, especially the piece around like the lack of youth art spaces. If you are younger than 19, you're not perform you're not practice, the way, where people cut their teeth, I've been in the industry for 12 years now, where you cut your teeth are on open mind stages, but open mic stages are in bars, or if you're performing, like it's in a venue that's a licensed liquor venue. And so, if you are under the age of majority you don't have that spot to really like test out your stuff and there's only RISE is the our other long-standing like youth open mic which is in Scarborough. And then there's kind of like pockets of stuff and, like, performance festivals and stages, but there's not consistent youth art spaces, where, which is where this you know comes from, as well as the fact that there were no, there were no art spaces that focused on live music and provided the opportunities to perform with live music. That was in only again and, like open, they had like live open mic bands, but again, you have to be 19 plus, you had to  go to Kensington Market on like a Sunday night, I used to drive, I used to get on the go bus from Brampton and travel two and a half hours, just to go to the open mic when I was 16-17, just so I could start practicing. So when I came of age, and was in Regent, we were like that’s unreasonable. We need spaces, where young people can go, you know and practice, but the other piece, I wanted to really bring in. And I think it's very unique about having this in Regent is that without like advertising as such, the open mic became a spot, that was a mix of queer and trans people, as well as people who are straight and like or not read, not visibly out, who about largely racialized, so largely Black, brown, Asian youth and largely youth are also queer, but it wasn't never labelled as such, and I think it just organically happened because the band, when we first started and organizing like I myself identified publicly as queer. And so, and other folks in the bands did as well, and so people would. We would kind of attract this mélange of people, which in Toronto period you don't get a lot of, but in Regent as far as I know, by that point, there was no formal programming for queer or trans youth and the misconception is that there are no queer tor rans youth in Regent. Very large misconception, I would have other community leaders tell me when I was trying to like support queer programming in Regent, they’d be like they're not here, this is a community of like, you know we're largely people of colour there's no and religious and there's no, there's no queer here and I’d be like that's a lie. (laughs) Cause I know for a fact that there are, they're just not being reached, and so that is another really unique aspect of, of Lil Sis, I think, in that, like it's not explicitly a like queer program, but we get a lot of queer youth, who are coming to access programs.

  Naima:  So one of the things I know about Lil Sis is that y'all had actually completed a research project close to the beginning of your formation, I believe, so I would love to hear more about what that project was about, how you went about doing it, what you found.

  Kamilah: Totally, so yeah. We did a community based research report, meaning that it was not a research project that was like based out of a school or out of like an institution, it was myself, members and like partners of the Lil Sis team, so that's including members who like aren't necessarily people who are not necessarily member like staff members, but were allied with the project, and we just wanted to get an understanding or not even understanding, because most of us were queer artists of color, nearly everyone on the project. We really wanted to have something documented, like experiences documented, and even though we weren't like a big institution, it was just a group of us who are artists, we wanted to have some kind of like “hey like, we just want to have this written and out in the universe, that these experiences are happening, and that we have recommendations to make the, to make things better for queer artists of color”. And so what we did was do a call out for young queer artists, queer and trans artists, mostly performing arts, but some also like textile artists and stuff like that and to get together and so we ate food together. And we recorded conversations on our experiences in the art scene in Toronto, and so we did two groups, an hour conversation each over like rice and chicken, and we recorded it on our phones and we had some questions, but most of it was just free flowing conversation. And then, a smaller group of us got together and transcribed all the conversations and we went together through all those transcriptions and themed common experiences, as well as outliers, like stuff that weren't caught, like was not common or things that kind of stood out, so once we did that we analyzed it we put it into a document where a couple people wrote, kind of put it put the transcription into like actual text and, like copy. 

  Naima: Awesome and what would you say were the main findings of the research?

  Kamilah: So there’s several that had come up one of them, that was. One of the most ones that we like saw first and we're like yeah this is definitely thing was, the artists feeling like they couldn't be their whole selves. When they enter performing arts spaces. So like I feel like if I’m in a space that's like say an arts project or program dedicated to like, artists of colour I can be an artist of colour, but I can be like a gay artists of colour like I gotta tone that down kind of deal. And then another finding that had come up. Was the grant experience that was one that I definitely resonated with too, because for a lot of us, we felt like we had to really fetishize and like, exploit our trauma to get money, like we know that's what these funders want to see, we know that, like funders really get off on like trauma. And like pain porn was a term that came up a few times, and so that was something we discussed of like how we felt like we had to like essentially shuck and jive sometimes for money but we would do it because, at least, we would know we get the money and we can do what we needed to do, and so that was something that had come up. 

  Naima:  Yeah, of course. And what was so you mentioned that this was community based research, you know, it was not done by an institution. And, given that you are a grassroots community organization, what was your motivation for doing research in the first place, because when we think about research we associate it with you know, a university, an academic institution.

  Kamilah: Yeah, there’s a couple things one, I think that, as I saying earlier ,there's no from what I could find there is no research on this population. And why I found that I guess provocative, it didn't exist, was that, like, for a industry and and city and like country really that really loves to say that they're diverse and like multicultural and for the music industry cause that's my kind of positioning as a musician you really love to like hype up marginalized artists for like cool points and like social points and like because it's like sexy, but we don't actually have structured support systems, in many cases, to actually support them to have sustainable and like safe livelihoods as artists. And so that was one thing, like I want something document as well, at least it exists and it can be pointed to in reference to someone ever needs to like make a case of why, having you know spaces for artists of colour is important, for why, having grant applications that are accessible and not just like text essay only, application based style. To have, to make a case for why we need better spaces amongst like venues, and like for, for venue promoters to agree to understand to study and like sit with anti-oppression education and like implement that into their practice, into their venues type of deal, so really just wanted that to exist period because it didn't exist. Yeah, yeah. 

  Naima: Amazing. And why do you think community based research is important.

  Kamilah: it's accessible, it's I mean. It's not like an easy thing to just wake up and be like I’m going to get research done by University of Toronto and I’m going to walk in there and say they need to do some research on this because I said so. Like that's not going to happen, you need to be in there and like whatever, getting a PhD or have someone who's going to vouch for you and, partner with them in some case. Whereas this was literally like okay let's get together and then let’s document it and, like do it ourselves and yeah it's not academically like. Whatever vouched but it's still a conversation that's documented. There’s still truth in it. There's still experiences that are really important in it. So let's do it, and now. Now it exists and, just like in the fact that it exists alone, makes a shift. And so yeah, like community based intervention is accessibility. It's liberation. It’s movements. It's shifting conversations. It’s pushing discourse without having to go through all the red tape of like an academically approved research project.

  Naima: I am also, I’m also interested to hear about your relationships with the people who experience, who come to your programming. So I'd love to hear the relationships you have formed or the culture you have formed or yeah with with people who attend your workshops, come to your programming or even you know engage with you on social media.

  Kamilah:  that's a really interesting question, I think, is especially starting to come out now since we've been like kind of on hiatus for a bit, and just started coming back to workshops over the last few months. But there's been some really interesting conversations around our branding. I'm going to start it from that that point and other people can jump on, I know Alma you we've had quite a few conversations around this and, but one thing that was like. Something that I think people have, we've come into is like an assumption of who we are, and what we do, and who comes because of our branding. And I think our branding is very different from most arts groups, especially in Toronto. And I, I’m, I won't say any names, but something that people have literally emailed us about, have been people being like we love how colourful and how like boldly, like vibrance, and some people have described this as femme or like it's like boldly femme in a space in Toronto that's very, very much centers masculinity, very much centers like neutral tones, that like, black and brown as like their colour layout or like black and white and, like other neutrals, stays away from a lot of like bright vibrant things and like. That's been the thing that we have come up and I won't go into all the stories because I’m sure Alma has some tales to tell, but that has been very interesting and like who comes out just based off of the type of colours that we use on our website or on our, Alma’s Instagram posters that she makes for our workshops, like just that alone says so much about how people see and categorize and judge things so yeah.

  Alma: To add on to what Kami said about our branding I like noticed it firsthand within like our participants as well, so for our “Show me what you're working with” workshop we had one participant who saw, who registered and he identified, as like male, and he was one of the only participants there, and he was like ‘Oh’, and he saw that the rest of the participants were either female-identifying or just non-gender identifying people, and so you mentioned, he messages me privately on the Zoom and he's like ‘Oh, is this just like a female only event?’ like is this like, like ‘Am I invited here? Like am I like allowed to be here? Am I taking up the space of somebody else?” And I was like ‘No, like you're not, like don't worry about it, like this was open to everybody’ and I brought it up during our meeting afterwards, and I was like this is just so funny to me. And then me and Kami had a conversation afterwards, we’re like, like and one of my concern is like, do you think it's bad that we're targeting, like our bright and bold colours or our colours that are more feminine or whatever are targeting like not a male audience. And I realized, I, like the Toronto scene, the Toronto art scene in general, prioritizes masculinity in the first place and prioritizes minimalism in the first place. So our Lil Sis page, is always going to be maximalist, it is always going to follow maximalist trends yeah, like how you said hypebeast ass, cloud waste man scene, like it is fully like that in the Toronto arts scene right now, and so we're gonna we're gonna keep the colour always, always gonna keep the colour.

  Belul: No I was just gonna say, like that that whole story Alma said, about that one guy that felt, you know. Lil Sis, just by the colors in itself, is challenging the status quo. Like who said that certain colours belong to certain types of people? No. The colours is just a way to emphasize our vibrance and our boldness and what we stand for as Lil Sis. So yeah I believe that the the colors in itself, besides our messaging, is challenging the status quo and I love that for us.

  Naima: That's so important in a society that centers masculinity, you know yeah, like in, I love what you said about you know even minimalism, like I heard someone explain how minimalism actually, they were giving an analysis of minimalism, that showed how minimalism is tied to like capitalism, and I was like that is so on point you know. It's tied to capitalist value like, efficiency, you know and I love, how you are disrupting space to say you know, no, these femme colours ,that's actually normal and it's okay for everyone to participate in that, it's not just you know, a female only, you know women only space just because we're using femme colors, but we're we're kind of interrupting the status quo dominant behavior, tendency within the space.

  Kamilah: Another story that happened is, when we were first running our open mic. A peer of mine in the music industry came, came out and towards the end of the night he asked me, it's like okay so like this is open mic for like, for queers, there's mostly queers here. And I was like. No like we never labelled it as such, we never, we don't shy, I don't know, I don't check, ask as people come in, just people who come who feel welcome in this space come. And so like there are certainly a an air of like, Lil Sis is like this, or it's not it's not, it's something different, and literally that's because we use the colours like yellow, pink, blue, and green. Like that's, like that's, the only thing that we do, we say BIPOC, we have queer, trans people on our like our larger team, myself and like we have many, who come, but we also have just have a large racialized population, but literally the only thing that we like do is, use yellow green pink and blue, and people are like, like ‘What does it mean? Can I come? Like there's flowers on this?’. I’m like, ‘Are you scared of flowers?’ like, “It’s fine, just come through it's. It's very interesting, it's very interesting to have this sort of, I guess physical or like visibility with these colors within the Toronto landscape, because yeah a lot of a lot of people are just very hypebeast stuff, again very masculine centered.

  Naima: Yeah, and who who responds this way? I’m curious, is the response from, you know the professionals, the professional artists, who are like maybe non-racialized, is the response from them different than the response you get from people in community, racialized queer people, or are responses over the place, because you know, sometimes we can internalize that stuff ourselves.

  Kamilah: Anyone who wants to come in and like add to this, I’d say that's a good question, especially because we're only ending our first. We started as Lil Sis in July, so hasn't even been a full 12 months and we only started offering public programming as of March, so like we're still very much young in our existence as Lil Sis providing these providing workshops, the open mic ran for a lot longer, and we, the response to that, I think. That was just really a mix. We had like, five year olds, we had 60 year olds, we had like, remember the cowboy, the white cowboy from.

  Alma: America he came from America. Like, it’s for an open mic. 

  Kamilah: That's the really funny part, is there's like we've had such a huge amount of people come, and the response to it is so strong. And strong in a way that like, people are coming, that person who came, my peer who was like this is a queer event, he was like still down to come, but he was like, this is my my observation and this person was a cis-man, and a straight cis man, and so I was like yeah I think, I’m like. And anything that was like off of that, you're like this is queer like. Whatever, so I think the response to the open mic has just been like, the quality was so strong and it was so unique because we, at that time when we started, we're the only youth-centred space, that was offering professional live musicians to play your music, no one else was doing that, at that time and that like people were coming just from all over the place, so the response was just like. Both. There was peer members who were saying things like this is this is queer, this is different and then. Some, we do get some emails sometimes, like I got an email from like Sick Kids hospital like a month ago, and I was like, we see that you have you know reached into you know queer and trans youth, and wants to study them for a medical study we're doing and I was like. Not at all our, what we do. So, this is really weird and considering the like medicalization and like whatever has been done to queer and trans youth, like I'm like this is that's fucking weird. So like there's like a you can always tell when it's real and you can tell when it’s like fetishizing, but again, it hasn't even been a full year yet. So there's lots left to kind of learn for us of like who, how people see us, I guess, but I’ll leave it open as well for us to the team to come in, because that's a good question I’m not really sure. If that was the best answer like how people respond and the different kinds of people but yeah.

  Alma: I think, for the most part, branding-wise like our audience likes the content, like there's like there's a reason why I, like the people that we follow, our engagement like I’m talking about like not just like likes and comments on what like, the shares and talking about the saves on an Instagram post, like I can, when I like check the analytics and stuff, like I can always see that and there's a reason why our branding works, because people are using it, like our followers, like are sharing our content. I would, but like nobody on Instagram has ever like questioned why our content is the way it is, I feel like most of the experiences have ever like have been oralistically from men like, ‘My masculinity is too fragile for this content’ like you know what I mean, not to say that, like all men have fragile masculinity but I’m just saying, it was mainly people with fragile masculinity who were like uh is this, for me, yes it's for you, you can use, you can come to a workshop with. You can go to a workshop with flowers on it and it's absolutely okay, but yeah.

  Rayan: On a similar note, so that, like, I feel like the aesthetic of it all too because again like Lil Sis is about creating like safer spaces for folks, and so we do have our main audience, and I feel like, if anything, our aesthetic like works to. Keep it, not geeky but like, the people that respond to it are the people that we want in general. You know what I mean? So the people that respond to it, like the people who are like, “um I don't know if I can like it's. And then. Like it’s so, fam. Da da da da, is this for me?’ Like you know what, you’re probably homophobic and transphobic, x y z, we never wanted you anyways so. It like it works in that way to just keep em out. Like they don't, it wasn't, it wasn't for you, like you know what, it's the minimalism and the dark colours and whatever that speaks to you and that's for you, your community is, your community is everywhere actually. This is a small niche, unfortunately but it's a small niche, and so the people that it attracts are the people that we want, and I feel like that's also the beauty behind that aesthetic that we have is like. It does the outreach for us almost and it like filters through people for us. In terms of people that attend and people that we want as an audience.

  Suzanna: I was actually just gonna say that. And just our branding everything, like the colours all of that stuff, it's different. Like it's it's completely different than I’ve seen other organizations or whatever do. And so I feel like the way that we're creating something that hasn't been out there. There's been people out there, like looking for something like this and they haven't been able to find it so that's why we do attract, like literally, a specific, kind of like exactly who we want to attract like you know, because they're looking for these resources that they weren’t able to find elsewhere, so it just kind of works itself out in that way. 

  Naima: Thank you so much for joining us on this episode of The WhyPAR podcast. I learned so much from Lil Sis. Some things I’m reflecting upon include on the power of creating spaces that are so desired and needed but not present for queer & racialized youth, include how community-based research means accessibility and liberation, and how Lil Sis challenges capitalism through its maximalist aesthetics and culture of care.

Details

This episode features conversation between the Lil Sis team - Alma Ahmed, Suzanna Maharaj, Rayan Saied, Belul Kidane, and Kamilah Apong - and podcast host Naima Raza. 

In this episode, Lil Sis and Naima discuss community-engaged youth research and programming. They discuss the need for arts-based programming for queer and racialized youth in Regent Park; the importance of community-based research; and how Lil Sis branding challenges heternormativity in the Toronto Arts scene.

Alma Ahmed: From a spectator at the first open mic to participating in its current grant and research project, Alma has been involved with the hummingbird open mic and LIL SIS since 2015. she has been part of the hummingbird street team and has been a co-contributor of its current research project. aside from admiring how far the project has come, she is currently a nursing student and hopes to bring smiles to everyone’s faces; whether it be her future patients or spectators at the events she hosted with her co-emcee and co-contributor Suzanna.

Suzanna Maharaj: hummingbird and the LIL SIS  project has had a place in Suzanna’s heart for years. from performing spoken word at the first open mic, to being brought on as a host, to now being the admin and resources lead on the team that achieved this research grant. when Suzanna isn’t working on LIL SIS content, she can be found waving her flag in a fete or improving her one-woman business.

Rayan Saied: Rayan began her work with the hummingbird team in highschool working to help spread the word out about our first ever youth-centred open mic in Regent Park. as event host and outreach team member, she was closely involved with many of the open mics throughout the years. her role with hummingbird evolved into a research role as we began to focus our work on recording and understanding the experiences of racialized LGBTQI artists and their access to resources and spaces within Toronto.

Belul Kidane: Stop trying, it’s pronounced “Bae-Lou-l”. Belul Kidane is a new member of the Lil Sis team but has been engaged with hummingbird since 2018. She is a performing artist, song-writer, part-time social media comedian and also owns a “non-borrowable” library in her bedroom. If she could eat one thing forever, it would be Mac and cheese. Thank you for coming to this Ted Talk.

Kamilah Apong: kamilah (kah-MEE-lah) apong is  a queer 90’s babe, and is currently re-watching entire Sailor Moon series for the 49283742rd time. She has some cute tummy rolls and would like to mother a couple alpacas 🦙 🦙 🦙 🦙 🦙. She’s the lead singer for the disco project, Tush, and co founded the hummingbird open mic in 2015, and LIL SIS in 2020.

This episode was hosted and directed by Naima Raza, produced by Ruben Gaztambide-Fernandez and Sarah Switzer, and supported by Youth Research Lab assistant Madeleine Ross.

Episodes 7 and 8: A Conversation Between Maddy Ross and Jaden McGregor, Luisa Gonzalez, Annie Silva, Lainey Rios, and Valeria Pineda

• Read Transcript - Part 1

  Citation:

  Ross, Madeleine. ““If we really learned like this in school, school would be so much better”: On Building Generative Classrooms - A Conversation between Maddy Ross and Jaden McGregor, Luisa Gonzalez, Annie Silva, Lainey Rios, and Valeria Pineda (Part One).” Produced by Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández and Sarah Switzer at The Youth Research Lab. The WhyPAR Podcast. October 4, 2021. Podcast, MP3 audio, https://youthresearchlab.org/whypar

  Note on attribution:

  Ross, Madeleine. ““If we really learned like this in school, school would be so much better”: On Building Generative Classrooms Where Youth Can Thrive - A Conversation between Maddy Ross and Jaden McGregor, Luisa Gonzalez, Annie Silva, Lainey Rios, and Valeria Pineda (Part One).” Produced by Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández and Sarah Switzer at The Youth Research Lab. The WhyPAR Podcast. October 4, 2021. Podcast, MP3 audio, https://youthresearchlab.org/whypar

  Host: Welcome to The WhyPAR podcast, a project of the Youth Research Lab at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

  Music

  Host: In the WhyPAR podcast, youth participatory action research practitioners discuss the ethical dimensions of conducting YPAR. In our podcast, we explore issues of co-leading YPAR projects, building relationships, power dynamics, and sharing our work together. The Youth Research Lab is located in Toronto on the traditional territories of the Huron-Wendat, the Seneca, and most recently, the Mississaugas of the Credit River. 

  Valeria: If we really learned like this in school, school would be so much better. Teachers might look at it like extra work, but realistically, if the students do good, the teachers do as well.

  Host: Welcome everyone! My name is Maddy, and this is my first episode as co-host of the WhyPAR Podcast. I’m a PAR practitioner and currently a research assistant here at the Youth Research Lab. 

  When I think about what inspired me to do a Master’s in Education, I always come back to my first experiences in YPAR projects nearly a decade ago as a high school student. Just like the amazing young people in today’s conversation, the process of collaborating with my peers to gather data, make meaning, and drive change was a transformational learning experience.

  Today’s conversation is the first in a two-part series with five youth researchers in T’karonto. Valeria, Luisa, Lainey, Jaden, and Annie all got their start in YPAR in the Youth Solidarities Project, a night school-based project of the Youth Research Lab that brought together Urban Indigenous and Latinx high school students to better understand and address challenges youth face in schools. Since then, they’ve graduated from high school, began post-secondary studies, and have taken on the role of facilitator in other YPAR initiatives. Most recently, they came together in the summer of 2020 to explore how Indigenous and Latinx youth in their communities are navigating the COVID-19 pandemic. 

  In this episode, the youth researchers focus on their high school experiences in a YPAR classroom. Together, we discuss how the relational ethic of YPAR shaped a generative learning environment that was distinct from their other experiences in education. We talk about power dynamics in student-teacher relationships, the value of students having autonomy in their education, and lessons from YPAR that teachers can bring into their classrooms to better support the success and wellbeing of all students. This conversation was recorded over Zoom.  And with that, let’s jump in! 

  Host: Thank you for joining us and let's start with having you go around and introduce yourselves. 

  Valeria: I can go first. So my name is Valeria. I'm a first-generation Mexican immigrant. I started YPAR, I believe in 2018 during my last year of high school. And I joined again for my fifth year during high school and participated in the research project we did at the beginning of the pandemic, and I'm currently studying social services, for immigrants and refugees.

  Luisa: So hello, my name’s Luisa Gonzalez. I started YPAR in my, in Grade 11, so, and wasn't able to do it in Grade 12, but then rejoined the project again. And now we, I also participated in the recent project around COVID and currently I'm finishing my first year at Ryerson with a Bachelor in Social Work. 

  Lainey: Hi, my name's Lainey. I have been doing YPAR for about three years now, I think. I also started in Grade 11 and I did the night school program for two years then after joined this group. I am currently finishing up my first year of university at the University of Guelph, and I am doing a Bachelor of Science.

  Jaden: Hello, my name is Jaden McGregor or Wasseyaa giiwe nibin, I am an Indigenous and Jamaican Torontonian. I have been a part of YPAR for the last two years. I started in 2019, initially in the night school program. And now I'm a part of this group, am currently studying Geography and Aviation at the University of Waterloo. And I'm just finishing up my first year. 

  Annie: Hi, my name is Annie Silva and I am from Colombia. I started a YPAR my last year of high school, Grade 12. I did the night program there and then I went on and did the research opportunity, the one we just finished. And I'm currently studying at the University of Toronto Arts and Science Program. 

  Host: So you've all briefly mentioned some of the projects that you've been involved in, night school, other classes. So why don’t you give us an idea of what brought you to this work or how you first started doing YPAR? 

  Valeria: For me personally, when I first, when I first was introduced to this, the YPAR program I participated in, I was very intrigued. Because I remember it, mentioned it was for Latinx and Indigenous students and throughout my whole like, high school and elementary school, education, I never really saw any programs or anything dedicated to the Latin American community. So, I didn't know exactly what YPAR was, but I was pretty excited because of that. And yeah.

  Lainey: Yeah, similar to Valeria, I heard about it from a friend. She had just started the program and she seemed really interested in it and was excited about it. So I asked if I could join, I emailed directly one of the teachers, cause I was really late to the program. I kind of begged her to let me join because it was the very first thing I've ever heard of for Latinx students. And I was kind of excited to meet more Latinx students as I lived in pretty like white neighborhood with not a lot of Hispanic people. So, I was really interested about it and that's how I joined.

  Luisa: For me, my guidance counsellor at the high school I was at, called me down. And my first, honestly, I thought I was in trouble, but it was for the opportunity to meet one of the recruiters for the YPAR project. And, I actually met with Kaitlind and we had a conversation about how the course would be carried out as we were getting a credit that counted towards our graduation. And, I remember that she explained that we were able to structure our own learning and, like request what we were going to be marked on. And she presented it as something that like ‘you had a say in your education’. And that was really not the case for the courses that were mandatory in high school. You were mostly just given a syllabus or instructions, and this is going to be this, this is going to count towards this, but it was nice to have an, an opinion towards the curriculum. And that's honestly what caught my attention.

  Annie: So yeah, I knew about it in Grade 11, but I couldn't join it. I was too late, but then in Grade 12 I had the opportunity to, you know, be part of it. And I thought it was really interesting and I met a lot of new people, which I really liked. And then yeah, they offered me, well, you applied to go into the other research one that we just finished and that's how I started at YPAR. 

  Jaden: I, like I said, I started, I joined the program in my last year of high school and I'm always looking for opportunities like this to connect with youth who have like an interest in research and also just like more learning and such. So, one of my teachers actually found the opportunity and they kind of presented it to me and I was like, this sounds really cool. It could be fun to do. And so far, I really enjoyed it, because it's a different way to learn as well as allowing me to have my own way to kind of understand other people in my community as well as, just overall kind of research wise. Yeah. 

  Host: I think part of what also makes your experience unique is that all of this, all of the participatory action research that you've been involved with has been in a school setting or initiated in a school setting. And I'm curious about, when you first started participating in this class, how you felt and how it was different from your other experiences in school or in education until that point. 

  Luisa: For me, it felt more personal because, I remember it would normally start at four. And, when we got there, normally most of the time there was food ready for us to eat and they were very, like, the instructors were very like interested in you and it was a small group, but it was still a good amount of people that like, you know, it was, it would have been easy for the instructors to just kind of, you know, sit you down, whatever, do your thing. But I really liked how, as one by one we came in, they would always be like, how was your day? You know, and how are you doing? And we had these activities, it was called a Rose and a Thorn, and we would share a good thing that had happened in the week and a bad thing. And I felt like I actually really got to know everyone. 

  Lainey: Yeah. Kinda what Luisa said. The instructors really did remember what you kind of said, your thorn was last day or something good that's going to happen. They kinda follow up and ask you how it went. You had a test, they’d ask you, ‘Oh how was your test?’ you know? They really tried to remember and build that connection with you, which is really nice. In terms of the setting, I did think it was weird. I remember the first day of class, we, we got put into groups and then they told us, okay, you guys are going to make your own rules. You guys are gonna make a list of your classroom rules. And I looked at my friend. I was like, what? We've never done this before. Like, this is kind of weird. It was fun though. You got to meet new people because you were put in random groups and we stuck by those rules. 

  Valeria: Similar to what Lainey and Luisa said, I thought it was really nice that we got to kind of choose how we wanted to go about the course. I feel like, it, like the facilitators kind of were, they cared about our different types of learning. Cause I know some people, for example, they are better at tests and some people are better at assignments. Some people are more artistic and you know, everyone has different ways of learning. And I feel like that's something that lacks in our education system and I feel like it gave students the opportunity to kind of really show what they were good at and that they can actually, you know, go about a course if they're given the opportunity to present their work in a way they can. So I really appreciated that. And like Luisa said as well, like the facilitators cared about our wellbeing, the Rose and the Thorn I feel like impacted everybody in a really positive way because they created like a sense of trust. And, you know, it created a positive environment where everybody can come and feel like they can, you know, share something personal about their weekend. And I can tell that throughout the course, people opened up more and more and it, and yeah, I feel like it's just a good thing because a lot of people go to school and teachers don't really care. And, the students don't work well with people that don't really care. So I feel like it created a good dynamic between the facilitators and the students.

  Jaden: One thing I really liked is it is, it didn't feel like they were teaching us. It felt like we were discussing things together as a team and a group. That was something I really liked and comparable to other schools. Like they're kind of, they're telling you what to learn and telling you what to look at and understand. But with YPAR and our groups that we've been a part of. We kind of come together as a team and figuring out what we want to focus on. 

  Annie: Yeah. One thing that really interested me was, you know, as everyone said, the learning dynamic, because all of the courses that I took in high school were very like, academic-oriented. So it was very much like your regular, your, your teachers there, everyone's facing the teacher or you're writing down notes as fast as you can, to try to like understand everything. And then, you know, the test comes and you have to memorize a lot of stuff. And at the end of the course, well, a lot of sticks, a lot of things stick with you, but others, no, you don't remember as well. But I remember a lot about what we used to talk about in, our night school, I think mostly because as it was said before, it was more of a conversation that you had instead of, like sit down and learn, but I'm giving you all of the answers and you have to memorize everything. So that part was really interesting for me. And it was a big, like change because not, it felt more relaxed, but at the same time, you were still learning a lot and it was really interesting how everything connected at one point when, when we, ended up at the end, everything connected, and it was always really interesting to go to class. 

  Luisa: Something that really stuck with me was that, for, it was like when Lainey mentioned that we made a list, we, the instructors asked us, asked us, do you want an exam? And even though like Valeria said, there's so many people that have different ways of learning, and I'm a hundred percent sure that in that group, there was all of them. Right. But we all immediately agreed on no exam. Like there was no argument, like there was no, no pushback. And I think that, that really shows how the education system really doesn't even understand students because if a group of practically strangers, it was our first class, was able to agree on one thing. And at the end, it benefited all of us. 

  Host: It sounds like the dynamic between the facilitators and the youth researchers was very different from the normal teacher-student dynamic and that you were able to guide your own learning. Talk a little bit about how that relationship formed between the facilitators and the students.

  Luisa: I think an important thing was that you saw that they had your best interest in mind. It wasn't just like you have to get through the course. We have to, you know, get over this and you have to just get your credit. It was very like personal. I don’t know, that's the only way that I could think of describing it. They were very, aware of your perspectives, of your opinions and everything. 

  Valeria: Yeah. I agree with Luisa. I feel like, like she said, I feel like from before they even met us, they already had the goal that like, they want us to succeed throughout the course, like, each and every one of us. So obviously, you know, the facilitators are researchers as well. So I feel like from what they've learned or experienced, they know, they know as well that students can thrive better in that type of environment and that's what they created for us. So I feel like it was just their end goal to make us as comfortable as we can. 

  Lainey: Yeah. Just to add on to that, one thing that I remember a lot of was towards the end of the program, we have like a big project, like our research project, and this project could be on anything that you really wanted to do. And I feel like normally we can do like these big projects at the end of the year, and you kind of need approval from your teacher. You know, you kind of ask them like, oh, is this okay? Is this aligned with the curriculum? But when I remember, if I ever asked any of the instructors, they wouldn't tell me yes or no, they would say, do you want to do that? Can you do that? Is this something you want to do? It was very like, just about the students. So I thought that was really, really nice of them. And as Valeria said, I think from the beginning, the classroom was focused around us and the students, not around the teachers, they really let the learning kind of flow wherever it was. Like, like wherever it went, that's where we'd kind of go with it. Like if we start talking about one topic, but it went into another like way different direction, we'd go with it. Like they wouldn't stop because oh, we have to get back on track. Then they kind of let us lead our own learning. 

  Host: What are some lessons from PAR that teachers can take and bring into their classrooms?

  Luisa: I think an important thing is to not rush the learning, to not push people to fit into the box, even though that is hard given the standards that there are, curriculum and stuff. But try and make it a little bit, a little bit, at least in some way, a little bit more personal, even if it's just a, ‘Hey, how are you?’ to your students and actually paying attention. I think that something small like that at least would make a big difference. 

  Valeria: Yeah, like we mentioned a lot of times, the importance of recognizing the importance of students. I feel like impacts the learning of students, but also like how the dynamic that is created for the classroom. I feel like there's mutual, more mutual respect between facilitators and students. So like Luisa said, asking the Rose and a Thorn is such a perfect example because it shows that we all care about each other, our well-being, and before we learn, obviously our well-being is first, you know? And being understanding of students. I know many times some students and even myself, we were kind of like maybe a bit more tired or, you know, we weren't working our best. I can, I know, like some of the facilitators realized, like when I was feeling more down or when I was looking tired and stuff, and they would ask me about it rather than judging me, because I feel like in school when you're not working well and maybe you're having a bad day, teachers instantly judge you and you know, kind of base their thought of you on that instead of asking what's wrong or how things can get better. So, yeah, I feel like recognizing the importance of students and the importance of showing them kindness can have a good impact in their learning and in teaching. 

  Lainey: Yeah, just to add on what Valeria said, I think having that personal connection with your students and having some sort of relationship with them really helps when they're feeling down or, you know, what works best for them at the end of the day. A lot of the times the facilitators or teachers would kind of pick up on things, like a couple of times if I was down or I looked like I wasn't doing well, they told me to go home early. And they would always say, oh, you need to complete a certain amount of hours in order to get the credit. They, if I left like 30 minutes earlier, an hour earlier, they wouldn't tell me, oh, you need to make up the time. They were very considerate about that. And they understood if you needed to be somewhere else. If you couldn't make it one day, they would either give you an assignment or they'd ask you kind of how do you want to make it up? I think I had to make up a class one time. And they're very, very understanding. And I think that helps because you can easily come to them when you have any problem, you can, you can talk to them versus when you are in high school and taking let’s say a science course. I know that I was stressed out and I would never ask my teachers for an extension. I just felt I couldn't. Like I probably could have, but I didn't have that relationship with them or I thought that they would actually understand me and give me an extension or let me write the test like a day later. So I think that's really important. 

  Luisa: Just to add onto what Lainey said, I think it's very important to build an environment where your students don't fear your authority because normally, sometimes if you were to ask for an extension, it's, you’re given this whole interrogation. And it's understandable that there are sometimes reasons, and, but you also have to be, I think, understand the circumstances. Like, is this a student that has always done what they're doing or are they actually maybe going through something? So I think that it's important to establish a relationship so that your students aren't just fearful of you. 

  Annie: And I think going back to the science and math courses and connecting with…  The fact that we had a Rose and a Thorn, it was, at first I kind of saw it as a waste of time in the beginning of the class because I thought it was just, you know, people are just making things up or like or like it's just a way to just move on or waste a little bit of time. But at the end, I would like even after a couple of times that we did it, I think it was very helpful for myself even to get some, even if it was a small thing like, oh, I didn't like the weather today or the weather was beautiful today, just getting something out like that was really helpful. And hearing someone talk about their day was, too. And sometimes, I think I saw it as a waste of time in the beginning was because every course that I would go to, like a math or science courses, like you sat down, you waited for the teacher and they started talking. They started teaching the lesson. And there was no connection between them or you in any way. And they were always like, OK, we have to get through this. We're not going to waste time. We have to get through the unit like all of this. And yeah, it was really hard for me to even ask them you know a question, because I just thought that, ‘Oh, I should understand this already’ because of the way that they presented this information was like you had to know it, you had to know. But taking the time for even your students to, for the teacher to be reassured that the students know the information is just I think is very important as well, because I think even as a teacher, I think it's a reassuring yourself that you're being a good teacher if your students are understanding the material. But yeah, even if it takes just a little bit more time than usual, it'll go a long way. For the students, yeah.

  Lainey: To add onto what Annie said about the Rose and the Thorn, when you're sharing and somebody else is like, oh yeah, I'm stressed too about exams or yeah the mood has me feeling down. It gives you a sense of almost validation that your, your kind of problems are valid. They're not just dismissed and you're not the only one. That was a big thing that came up in our COVID project. But I think a lot of people think part of it is that they notice that they're not the only ones going through these problems. They're not alone because in COVID you feel very isolated from everybody else. So, I think I just connected to that, that even the Rose and the Thorn brought that to us. You know, we're all students who are going through similar things. 

  Valeria: Yeah, I want to add on to what pretty much everybody said, I feel like I was thinking about it as well. Like, you know, if we really learned like this in school, school would be so much better. And but I was thinking, like, you know, teachers might look at it like extra work, but realistically. If the students do good, the teachers do as well, and I feel like it creates mutual respect and it just makes class not fun, fun is not the right word, but maybe more, I don't know, more educational, more positive rather than like, ‘Ugh I have to go to class. And I don't like this teacher’ and things like that. Like, you know, I feel like it's difficult on a lot of students. And I feel like every student goes through difficult times in school. And I feel like if these extra little efforts were put into teaching and into the students, I feel like more students would be able to do well. There'd be not a lot of people dropping out and things like that. So I feel like putting in that extra work to being kind and acknowledging your students and maybe accommodating them a little bit, like it goes a long way. 

  Host: I'm really hearing the importance of mutual respect between the researchers and the facilitators, and how community building is not just a nice to have part of the process, but actually essential to doing PAR in itself. Can you think of any other essential components of the process that really make PAR a meaningful learning experience as a student?

  Jaden: I think the ability to discuss things and have that very space that feels very open and not just one way to do things, but having those, being able to hear those other perspectives and hear those other ideas and still incorporate them into that, I guess, let's say the greater idea of what we want to do. And for example, the latest project we've had, we all came in with a bunch of ideas about what we wanted to do but we were able to incorporate all those separate ideas into the final project and create something that we all liked and enjoy it. I think it's important to have that space of discussion and have a very open space and not have it restricted to one right way of doing things.

  Annie: I think also, though, the teaching styles, I think we would go over it, maybe we didn't realize it, but we would go over the same theme or the same topic several times, but in, even in different environments and in different ways that we did it as well. Because I remember we would meet in two places, we would meet at the OISE or we would meet at the school. And sometimes we would even talk about the same things. But weirdly enough, they would present it differently, but, and at different locations. But it would just stick with me a little bit more. So going through topics more than once or teaching it different ways was also, I think, a really good strategy that they used for teaching. 

  Lainey: Yes, to add on what Annie said, I think that was a really important part of YPAR was different styles used. Even though in the moment you don't realize you're learning. That's the good part about it. They use so many different ways to teach us things that we didn't even know we were learning. Like I remember we did a graffiti wall and, you know, we kind of just I was, oh, you know, fun. We just kind of have to draw on the wall. But you actually kind of got to think about what you're drawing about. They gave us like a question or a prompt. We even did, like body maps. And, you know, they brought in Elders to talk to us. We did like, one time when we went into OISE we kind of broke out in different groups and we all did different activities. But as Annie said, they're all around the same things, but these different teaching styles make you look at it in different ways. So I think that's the really important part that they incorporate into the program. 

  Host: How has your engagement in these PAR projects changed or shaped other aspects of your life?

  Luisa: For me it had a really big impact. In Grade 11, when I first joined, I was actually, I was thinking about university, of course. And, I was actually thinking about going into nursing and, I was taking, you know, all of the sciences and all of those advanced programs. And I honestly like had never realized that even if it wasn't, you know, something like in medicine or a law or, or those things that are like that are viewed as success, that you could still do something and have an impact and be successful. And, it really helped me focus more towards my social science classes. And that is how I ended up in a social work program. So I'll personally, I think it had a very drastic change in what I was doing in life.

  Lainey: I think for me personally, it kind of opened the door of research for me. I had never really thought about it in high school. They, I was not like Luisa in Grade 11. I was not thinking about what I was going to do after high school. I chose very last minute. I didn't know what I wanted to do. But I really liked research. And then towards the end of Grade 11 and Grade 12, I discovered that I really enjoyed science. And in science you could also do a lot of research. So I think it also helped me just to realize how much I would love to incorporate like science and research together. I’ve tried to look for other opportunities similar, but I think it's a little bit harder to get into science research opportunities because there's a lot of people trying to look for that. But I think it impacted like my decision of what I want to do later on. Like, I definitely want to continue doing research.

  Jaden: For me. I always kind of saw research as it's very big and complicated thing. So YPAR kind of, I guess simplified it, it doesn't seem as like scary, I guess, or like very like grandiose, it's more of like a thing that I can kind of do in my own life, I guess, the skills and the, that sense to my own life and kind of build on that also, I didn't really know, like research that much. But also like doing this YPAR has kind of inspired me even in my program, there isn't that much research aspect, but it kind of makes me want to like, pursue further education and research perspectives and kind of just see what I can find and learn about. 

  Valeria: For me, I was always very interested in like social justice issues, um, and things like that. And from what I had read about the description of this YPAR program, I understood that we were going to learn about colonization and decolonization and things like that. So I was like, that's kinda what caught my attention. And I feel like it increased my knowledge a lot about Cana-, like about Canadian history, about colonization and things like that. Like in my upbringing, my Mom always taught me about colonization and always made sure we knew about our ancestors, my family, my siblings, and I, so I felt like really happy when we were learning this in this class. And it also, I wanted to be a social worker for a while and I feel like it bettered my experience. And also it also opened my eyes on, you know, how I can work with the Indigenous community better and how I can be, you know, respectful to the land we're on and things like that. So yeah, it kinda opened my eyes a little bit more to like future projects I would like to do. And of course the facilitators, I feel like they were very good on advice and they're very helpful. So I learned a lot from them. That I learned things that I know I can use in the future. 

  Host: What is your advice for folks who are interested in doing this sort of work, participatory action research with young people?

  Jaden: For me, I would simply say dive in and have fun and see what you find.

  Luisa: Yeah, I would say it's, they should do it. Like whether it, you know, it gives them a drastic change in their life or not. I think it's a wonderful experience and to get to know people that are in the same community as you, for example, like I didn't really even know many people that were Latinx at my school or anywhere near, let alone Indigenous people. So I think that it's important to join it so you can, you know, get to at least get to know new people.

  Valeria: Um, I would say the same. And also I feel like for facilitators and participants, I, I feel like they should know the great impact and, um, that this project has on students. And I feel like facilitators as well. It's, it's very positive and I feel like it's very needed and useful in our communities. So I feel like it's, I hope there's future YPAR projects. And I hope there's people around that get to participate in these YPAR projects because I feel like it can have a very impact, a very, a very good impact for, for youth and for other people. And it can be like lasting, a lasting impact that can, you know, possibly make them feel better or anything like that. Yeah.

  Lainey: I think for facilitators, I would say, go for it, do it. I think it will be very beneficial to their students and I assume it must be hard to do something that not a lot of teachers do, or that it's not really appreciated or seen as normal in the curriculum, but I think it's a great opportunity, students should definitely try and be a part of it. I think they will appreciate it highly and facilitators as well. Once you kind of see what impact do you give on your students... I think it will make them feel good as well. And also like don't be afraid to kind of make it personalized. I feel like that's the beauty of YPAR you can take it in different, routes. You can do it about science, you can do it about, social sciences or art or anything. So it's not like this box you're trying to fit into, it’s more like thinking outside of the box. 

  Annie: Yeah. And I think for students, there's always that sacrifice, you know, cause it's not in school. Of it being, you know, either you have to travel certain amount of minutes or hours to do it and you have to take time of your day. But I think it's very useful at the end of the day because, you know, if the facilitators do it right, well even if there's a right way to do it, cause you know, everyone has their own different ways, but the way I experienced it, it was so much fun. I learned so many things and I met so many people in the process and it really got me thinking about a lot of things, especially just how much of a space they gave us as marginalized communities that, you know, in my school, it was a, not a very, it wasn't, it was a very white school as well. And just having that space within people that you can connect to one way or another was just really great. 

  Music

  Host: Thank you so much for joining us on this episode of the WhyPAR Podcast. This conversation was a powerful example of how YPAR can be an inclusive pedagogy that creates conditions for youth to thrive in their education. I learned so much from these youth researchers about how YPAR in schools moves away from traditional teacher-student hierarchies by embracing young peoples’ inherent knowledge and by centering their agency to create change in their lives. Be sure to stay tuned for Part Two of this series, where Valeria, Luisa, Lainey, Jaden, and Annie discuss their experiences conducting YPAR during the pandemic and the subject of knowledge dissemination. 

• Read Transcript - Part 2

  Citation:

  Ross, Madeleine. ““Now that we were conducting the research, it felt more like power”: On Community and Conducting YPAR During and About the COVID-19 Pandemic - A Conversation between Maddy Ross and Jaden McGregor, Luisa Gonzalez, Annie Silva, Lainey Rios, and Valeria Pineda (Part Two).” Produced by Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández and Sarah Switzer at The Youth Research Lab. The WhyPAR Podcast. October 4, 2021. Podcast, MP3 audio, https://youthresearchlab.org/whypar

  Note on attribution:

  When citing the ideas and/or when quoting material from this podcast, please attribute the ideas to the speaker(s) and, whenever possible, note the timestamp or the line where the words quoted can be found. We recommend that you draw on the style conventions typically used for “secondary sources,” such as “quoted in” (Chicago Style) or “as cited in” (APA), and that you cite the source as listed above.

  Host: Welcome to The WhyPAR podcast, a project of the Youth Research Lab at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

  Music

  Host: In the WhyPAR podcast, youth participatory action research practitioners discuss the ethical dimensions of conducting YPAR. In our podcast, we explore issues of co-leading YPAR projects, building relationships, power dynamics, and sharing our work together. The Youth Research Lab is located in Toronto on the traditional territories of the Huron-Wendat, the Seneca, and most recently, the Mississaugas of the Credit River. 

  Jaden: So what we wanted to do is kind of look at people like us and see how they're being affected, because a lot of the research that we found, focused on the deficit and I guess the negative ways, not how people were being risen up and, how they've succeeded in a time like this, but how they're being brought down.

  Host: Welcome everyone! My name is Maddy, and I’m a co-host of the WhyPAR Podcast. I’m a PAR practitioner and currently a research assistant here at the Youth Research Lab. 

   This episode closes our two-part series with five youth researchers who were part of the Youth Solidarities Project at the Youth Research Lab. In this episode, Valeria, Luisa, Lainey, Jaden, and Annie share about their experience conducting a YPAR project during and about the COVID-19 pandemic to understand the experiences of their Indigenous and Latinx peers in what is known as the Greater Toronto Area. 

   They reflect on the challenges of translating the embodied and collaborative experience of YPAR into a digital space, and how the process of storytelling and building community in the project was itself a coping mechanism for them to remain strong amidst the isolation of the lockdown. We also discuss the values that they bring to this work including the crucial role of authenticity, and the rewarding experience of disseminating their research in both community and academic environments. 

   This conversation was recorded over Zoom. 

   And with that, let’s jump in!

  Host: I’m wondering if you can tell me a little but about the work that you’re doing right now.

  Jaden: I can say a little bit about it. So one thing that we wanted to look at, because in the initial stages of trying to figure out what we wanted to focus on is, lack of representation for Indigenous and Latinx youth and how they are being affected by COVID-19. So what we wanted to do is kind of look at people like us and see how they're being affected, because a lot of the research that we found, focused on the deficit and I guess the negative ways, not how people were being risen up and, how they've succeeded in a time like this, but how they're being brought down. It's important of course, to like look at those aspects, but we want it to look at that, the positives of it. So that's kind of the basis of our research we've been doing. 

  Luisa: Yeah. After we decided, what we were going to do, we actually recruited people who had been in YPAR night schools, the last couple of years, and we interviewed them on how they were handling the situation. And I think that was really good because it shows that like, YPAR really opens a variety of opportunities for the participants. Like, look at us, you know, in that first meeting, we would have never seen ourselves being the facilitators at some point. But I think that was an amazing, now that we were conducting the research, it felt more like power, you know. We talked about how it is important to have a variety of coping skills during this pandemic. And we determined that being participants of that, research was actually in a way a coping mechanism because it helped you realize that it wasn't just the number of cases, the number of deaths, the number of this cause on the news, there's a lot of just numbers, it's very impersonal. But when we did this research, we got to put a face to the struggles, to the positives and to the negatives. And I think that is very important, especially because we have been in isolation and we don't really see a lot of people or, you know, even what our neighbour is going through. 

  Valeria: I really like what Luisa said, about how we went about our, project. Also, I remember when we first were starting the project and we were deciding what to do. I remember we had a conversation about how during, throughout the pandemic, like we heard a lot about a lot of, like, we heard people talk about a lot of things, but we didn't really hear from youth. And we didn't really hear what youth had to say about the pandemic and what they were going through or how they were coping with it. I feel like, you know, obviously youth aren't as heard sometimes and we wanted to like, kind of be those people to, to speak on the, on youth and interview other youth and, and see how they are doing during the pandemic. And we felt, I felt it was very important, to do that. And I feel like it's something that should be done more. 

  Host:  So I want to ask, what values you bring to this work and what values you embody while you’re doing participatory action research?

  Valeria: For me, I feel like what I appreciate about YPAR and, about the work we did was like inclusiveness. Like we, like we talked about earlier, like we didn't really see any, programs or anything that, you know, was dedicated to Latinx people in Toronto. So I feel like, I mean, considering I study social work, I, I, I'm all for inclusiveness. I feel like we kind of lack that sometimes, you know, some communities are left out. So I feel like when we, when I began YPAR and I started to get to know the YPAR projects and, participated myself, I feel like inclusiveness was something that was very important to me. 

  Luisa: That was, like Valeria said, that has also been very important to me. My parents don't have higher education and I think seeing like Rubén and it's, it was he's, you know, he's, he was like funny. And he was, he felt like in a way, like, you know, like the uncle and, to me seeing that he was, had a PhD, he's actually a professor at OISE. I knew those people existed, but it didn't click, you know, it just didn't click. And I think that representation is important because of those reasons. You don't realize that you need it until maybe you see it.

  Jaden: I like to look at YPAR as a family. And I think one thing that I took personally from it, from an Indigenous perspective is community. And I think one thing you wanted to focus on in our research and just like getting to know each other and through the whole process of it all is building this community, kind of connecting with one another and being a support structure. That was a part of our research. We've wanted to build a community through that. So people could have that support in a time like this.

  Annie: Yeah. And I think, you know, cause we're all going through, different, stages in our lives and different troubles, that it was so important to have, empathy, especially when talking to other, you know, the people that we interviewed because sometimes people put a front to relate to others. But during these times, you know, it was really hard, to, to put a front because, I think that a lot of people didn't have the opportunity to talk, talk about what they were going through. Cause everyone was just inside. And if, sometimes, some people don't have a very good, you know, relationship with their parents or their siblings, like within their families. So, the fact that they had this opportunity to open up and I think most of them have felt very comfortable just to talk about it because at the end, you know, they expressed that this was even a coping mechanism. It was very important for us as researchers to, you know respect that, and be empathetic towards it and have them have their space to be able to talk it out. 

  Valeria: I wanted to touch on what Jaden said about community. I felt it was so important for well, I'm not speaking for the whole Latinx community, but for me, and I know for others, I felt like it was so impactful to, you know, connect with, people, part of the Indigenous community because we're all immigrants or kids of immigrants, and a lot of immigrants when they come to Canada, they don't understand or know about Indigenous people and the history of colonization. And I feel like it's so important to, to know about that. Especially because we're visitors on their land. So it made me think a lot about like all the positive impacts and different ways Indigenous people and newcomers can connect with each other. So I felt it was really nice and like, I just really appreciated learning about the real history of Canada and connecting with Elders and part, people, part of the Indigenous community. I really appreciated that. And I feel like it impacted me like for the rest of my life.

  Host: So I want to ask you about the role of authenticity, in your involvement in PAR, cause I hear you saying that you felt like you could be your authentic self in this space, but also that the relationships you had with each other and with the facilitators fostered authenticity. Yeah, what, what does authenticity look like in these spaces?

  Annie: I think in my opinion, authenticity would be, especially when I'm talking about like a teacher figure, because they were also like our teachers or our mentors, is like genuinely being interested in what they're sharing with us or teaching with us. Because I know I had a lot of teachers at my school that, my high school that they were kind of just want to get it over with. So put out all the information and then, you know, they had to say something like, ‘Oh, if you need any help, you know, come at lunch or come after school’ and you would, and it'd be like, the, the idea that if I didn't understand the topic, that it, it was a bad thing, and they would just give a brief explanation. And with that, I would understand everything like automatically, it was just a repeating of what they said before. But if, you know, you had a concern or you didn't understand the topic, or you just wanted to say your thoughts about anything, it was so free and, you didn't really feel judged or anything. You, you felt like you were contributing to the discussion that we had and they supported that 100%. So that's what I, I felt like they were very authentic in that sense. Yeah.

  Jaden: One thing for me personally, that I kind of took away from it is, a lot of the stuff we did kind of forced you to kind of be more authentic and kind of show your true colours and who you are as a person, kind of how you perceive the research we're doing, what we're kind of learning. That's one thing I really liked because I kind of pushed myself forward and be more open and kind of express what I'm thinking. And I think that one thing that YPAR kind of does, like get that authentic side of people's perspectives and experiences.

  Host: You, you talk about that almost as if it was a challenge. Were there other challenges that you experienced in the project or in the projects that you worked on? And how did you overcome those challenges?

  Luisa: For me, I think it was, for the presentation we did at Baltimore. I think the biggest challenge was not being able to think that you could do it. It was, it sounds very big and I was just in Grade 12, it was this huge conference and there were a lot of important people and it was, I think it was hard to imagine how you would fit into that environment.

  Annie: When, if we're talking about like challenges, talking about like the, the project that we just finished as a group. I think it was, you know, Zoom was a big challenge. I think it still continues to be, less than before, but, as well as, you know, coordinating what each person would do and what would we even do? Like, like even in the beginning, like, what are we even going to do? So even like, just challenges of thinking about what we would do in the beginning. But at the end, you know, we ended up picking something more, close to us, which I think was, a really good thing. Cause I think we, even us as researchers, we got a lot out of it, especially, the stories of other people. And I think it made us think a lot about, you know, our situations individually as well, which are also very challenging at this point. 

  Valeria: I, I kind of want to back what, Annie was saying. I was thinking that, that that was one of the challenges even like learning to do research ourselves, like as the youth part of the program and also getting used to the role of like youth researchers. I feel like, it's not very common, like I guess in society, I don't know. I felt like it was kind of interesting and different. So getting used to that and learning different research method, methods, and also like, like Annie said, choosing topics for me was also very difficult because I want to be so inclusive and try to reach out to, or, or have participants from different areas and everything. But, I guess I had to learn that it's not that easy. But that's exactly why I feel like YPAR is so important and, and projects like these that have a positive impact on youth and represent youth are, are very necessary, in Toronto. Because, you know, I feel like there's a lot of people that could, could benefit from this. Yeah.

  Host: What was the transition like from doing in-person PAR in a classroom setting to an online setting like Zoom? We know that PAR is so hands-on and collaborative. How did you begin to shape the online space and figure out different ways of working together?

  Lainey: So for, I think it was me and Valeria, the second year we did YPAR we were youth mentors. So we were actually got to be part of the team and help the instructors kind of lead the class. And every Friday we had Zoom calls regardless because we couldn’t all get together pre-pandemic. So I think that kind of helped us to be familiar with Zoom already, like the platform. And then since Luisa, Jaden and Annie had already kind of been doing a little bit of Zoom through school and when the pandemic hit, I think we were all pretty familiar with the platform. So in terms of using Zoom, it wasn't that hard though. Anything was hard that was hard about it was our actually doing our research and engaging people. I remembered Rubén got somebody to come in and talk to us about her experience of doing, gathering research through Zoom and doing like focus groups or big Zoom calls, kind of, she gave me some pointers of how to engage people, because the big thing about YPAR is engaging the audience and, you know, making everyone feel like they're part of it. So I think it took a little bit of time for us to actually think about, okay, how many people can we do on a Zoom call without it getting like awkward or without people getting uncomfortable because some of them didn't know each other. And the other thing was gender. Should we keep it a balance? Should we do, just boys in one call, or girls on one call? You gotta think about a lot of things just to make sure it flows really well. And you have to learn when to step in if there's like this awkward silence, should I step in? Are they thinking? I begin to say something or is it just going to be silent? So it definitely took a little bit of time, but I think we did pretty well.

  Valeria: Yeah. Like Lainey said, we had been using Zoom from before. But I feel like for the participants and stuff, it was kind of hard because I feel like YPAR was something for the most part people look forward to because it was so interactive and very genuine. And the environment was very positive because we ate together and we talked before we even started anything. And, I feel like that was nice. It was kind of relaxing. So I feel like when it was online, like all the other stuff was taking away from us. So I guess we had to like, find a way to continue to create that positive space and try to, you know, enjoy it as much as we could. So we did continue doing like the Rose and the Thorn. So obviously that was helpful because that's something everybody, enjoyed. But it was kinda difficult and different. Like it did make me miss seeing everybody and being in a group and everything. And like Lainey said, getting used to, you know, awkward silences and, things like that. It was, it was kinda difficult, but we, we did it. 

  Host: What are some of the ways that you know a project is successful when you’re doing it, despite encountering those challenges, what do you experience that lets you know it’s working or that you’re doing something that’s meaningful?

  Jaden: I think the simplest thing is when people start to ask questions and then become more engaged, you can kind of tell that people want to hear what you're saying. And kind of want to understand research and also what you have, purpose and kind of the background behind it. I would say that's the basis of it. More engagement equals more interest. And I think that's when you've kind of struck, something that you should dig deeper into. 

  Lainey: Yeah. Kind of what Jaden said, like when people come back or when they want to talk to you after you've talked about your presentation. I remember in Baltimore, some people came up to us and asked if they could have our email. I was like, my email? And they were like, ‘Yeah, in case I have any questions after. We really liked your presentation.’ It’s just little things like that. And in terms of participants, those participants that reach out to the facilitators, I assume to be part of that program again, because it obviously brought them something, they enjoyed it.

  Valeria: And for me, especially for this last project we did, about the impacts of COVID. I feel like when we were doing the work, I really enjoyed it and I knew, and I know my group knew that what we were doing was important and useful and we like wrote an article on it and everything. But the back of my head, I was thinking, you know, who's really going to read this or who's going to find this and stuff, but we got the opportunity to present it, not that long ago to, like a pretty big group. And I feel like when I presented it out loud and I spoke about the project out loud, I realized how good it was. Like I was really proud of us. And also all the feedback we got, it just made me realize how important the work we did was and like how it should be spoken about more and, and people were commenting on how the information we had it should, it should be, talked about more and like we should share it more. And it made me realize like, that's actually true. Like we did that work and you know, where, where youth speaking for other Latinx and Indigenous youth. And I feel like, yeah, just presenting it and hearing feedback from people made me realize, you know, the work we do is actually really good and, and useful.

  Host: So it sounds like sometimes the impact of your work and the outcomes sort of reveal themselves once you actually begin sharing the information and the stuff you’ve worked on. I want to ask about how your group decides about that dissemination process. How do you decide what to do with the information and stories you’ve collected and how do you decide who to share them with?

  Lainey: So when we just did this project, the COVID project, I think it was kind of a little bit of a long process until we decided how we wanted to present our work. We kind of, we all looked at the transcripts. The, the recordings of the focus groups multiple times, came back together, discussed it. I want to say we did it several times. Just back and forth, and collecting these main themes until we kind of decided how we wanted to present it. I think from the very beginning, Jaden had brought up storytelling. That was a really big thing. He brought up and we kinda, I think we knew we wanted to do it, but we left it for a bit and we circled back to it. And once we decided that storytelling, that's why me, Luisa and Annie created our own story. So I don't think there's an exact process of how we come up to the end goal. It just kind of happens a lot of discussions. And then in terms of where we present, Kaitlind kind of does a good job of telling us what's coming up, what conferences. And then if we want to participate in it, she will submit a proposal. If we get accepted, she lets us know and whoever wants to participate can feel free to do it. 

  Host: So I'm going to ask a follow up question to that. You talked about presenting at conferences and different opportunities, more in the academic sphere. What was it like coming into that sort of setting in the university and talking about your work?

  Valeria: Someone mentioned, something about empowering and I feel like that's how it kind of felt, going into the university and presenting, because I feel like even when you tell, you know, family members or friends like about this work, they, I feel like they might think like it's more for adults, but it was pretty empowering being able to present it and being the presenters and the facilitators, because I, I felt like, you know, I had a voice and I worked on this project and it, it's a project that can impact the community positively, you know, it can teach people things. So, yeah, going to present, at the conferences was pretty, pretty empowering and impactful for me.

  Luisa: For me as well. I think it's very empowering. And it makes you realize how there is value to the work that we are doing. And it feels like a long process. No, for all of the project, it has felt like there's a lot of steps, but when you do those presentations, it really, and it comes all together. Obviously, it doesn't always go perfectly as you've planned it, but even those mistakes are like, things that you didn't expect. It all just adds up really nicely and makes you realize how important, what, is it is what we're doing.

  Jaden: For me after presenting, I usually have a sense of like, wow. I kind of see the, once I see how other people kind of perceive the presentation and all this stuff we've looked at, it kind of changes my perspective and I kind of look at it and in the sense of like, wow, this is really something inspiring. It's really unique and interesting. And it really is something that you don't see a lot. And that's something I really like about it. So it's, it's always a good surprise, I guess, in the end. Inspiring. 

  Annie: Yeah. I, before presenting, I remember like the first, one that I did for the night school, it was a feeling of, I don't know, I just felt that the, the research that we had done and everything we had put it in, put in the work, I didn't think that people would be interested in it or it would be such a relevant thing. So both, but when I saw, you know, like all the people show up and I was presenting everything that we put in the work and we did everything, yeah, just like everyone said, it felt very empowering. And just how the little things that you do, just everything just comes to an end and you can really present your work and people will do do care about it at the end. They're very interested in what you do. So that at the end, it's kind of like a relief of that, you know, my work wasn't just like every other, let's say in high school, like you do a project, you do the research and it's, it's, determined by a mark. But it's so subjective because one teacher can give you one mark and the other two can give you another. But instead, this work was done and the feedback that you got either positive or negative, it was a way for you to build up on that and make you really reflect. And it wasn't based on a grade. It was mostly based on how, I guess, how, how much work you... at this point, I think I, if I think back on it, the work that I did, I saw it more as a, like a, like myself giving myself a grade, because that way I saw if it was good or bad according to how, people were talking about it. And obviously when you put that much work into it, I don't think it was, it would ever be a bad grade or bad experience because, in the end, you know, everything went according to your plan. But as well as Luisa said, all the little things that may have not gone, it all made the difference to show that our work really does matter. Yeah.

  Host: Yeah. It reminds us about the importance of trusting the process because you feel accomplished at the end regardless. What are some of the other ways that you’ve shared your work in the community?

  Jaden: In our most recent project... one of the, we made two kind of places to disseminate it. As Lainey said, there was a story. And, another thing that we worked on is a website that we wanted to create a community space. So a place a that Indigenous and Latinx could come and share their artwork in any form, photography, music, painting, and just a place that can kind of in a virtual sense, kind of come together. Cause that's kind of hard to do with COVID. You can't gather in a group. So having this virtual space, almost like a Community Centre, they come together and talk, yourself and how you're dealing with, it is one of the things we did.

  Host:  What is the future of YPAR?

  Lainey: I personally think there's a lot of potential on YPAR for the future, especially with this generation. I think the strong generations have very strong and strong opinions that are different than what past generations have thought about. So I think it's important to give youth the voice they need to be heard because I think eventually they'll do it themselves, they’ll take action themselves. So if we can just kind of give them that platform, that'd be great. I think it’d do wonderful things in society and everything. In terms of where I want it to go, I think I want there to be YPAR everywhere. I want every student in TDSB or any school district to get to experience it at least once. I think it changes a lot. I think it changes how you look at yourself because it’s not just being graded, it’s not just a grade. And if you get a bad grade, you know, you kind of feel bad about it. You feel like you're worth less I think. So in this program, it's not like that. I think it, it gives you more worth. You feel like you're, you know, you're bringing something to the table even though you're at such a young age. So I really hope that there’s more people finding out about it. You know, more teachers can decide to take that step forward and break the regular standards of classroom settings and bring YPAR into their schools.

  Jaden: I completely agree with Lainey, I think it needs to be bigger and just more people getting used to it and kind of incorporating it in our everyday lives, because youth have an interesting and unique voice that isn't really heard these days. A lot of older people are making the decisions that affect us, and it's important to look at new and fresh perspectives. And also it gives, YPAR just gives you tools and strategies that can help you and your life overall. I know I’ve definitely got stuff out of this that will help with the rest of my life. So I think that it needs to be everywhere. And just being incorporated more to allow young people to be heard more. I think. 

  Luisa: I think it's a wonderful experience, and like Jaden and Lainey said, there has to be more of it. It has to be offered in a lot of places and for more students who maybe would have benefited from this opportunity, but they didn't even know about it. And I think it's important for aspects of YPAR to slowly be brought into like the general school system, as that can benefit sometimes students that don't seem to even enjoy school.

  Annie: Yeah, I definitely think it should be offered at more places than it is now. It was a very different learning experience that I think a lot more people will benefit from it. And overall, I think it will grow soon because I do see as many of us do see it, potential for it to be bigger and better. And I overall really enjoyed it. And I think a lot more people and more students will too.

  Host: Thank you so much for joining us today and sharing this knowledge. Before we wrap up this episode, I wanted to ask if there's anything else you want to share with our listeners related to YPAR or doing this work in the community or in schools?

  Luisa: That if maybe this is the way, the first time that they're hearing about this, to do more research on it, spread the word and make sure that if you didn't get the opportunity to participate, that someone close to you can have the opportunity to participate. 

  Annie: I think one last thing that I like to say is that it was a big challenge for us, I think, to get used to such a different environment that we had, especially during COVID-19 and talking a little bit about the project that we finalized, I think it was really great working with everyone and getting the experience of being a researcher one more time. And the fact that you know, YPAR really gave me and gave all of us the opportunity to do so was really great because I know a lot of people don't get to do this. And even if it doesn't lead to anything after this, hopefully it does, but I just want to say that it really is a good opportunity and a good experience to really get out of your comfort zone and learn new things and become a leader and learn new skills, which is always great. And it really has helped me with all of that. 

  Host: Well, thank you so much, Luisa, Annie, Jaden, Valeria and Lainey for joining us today and sharing this important insight and knowledge with our listeners. I know that folks are going to take so much away from everything you've shared and really appreciative of you taking the time to be with us today. 

  Music

  Host: Thank you so much for joining us on this episode of the WhyPAR Podcast. I’m struck by the youth researchers’ reflections about the importance and value of opportunities for youth to be heard through participatory action research. I feel inspired by the way their recent project not only amplified youth voices and supported resiliency during the pandemic, but also helped them to individually build confidence and solidarity across communities of Indigenous and Latinx youth living in T’karonto. Stay tuned for our next episode and see you then!

DETAILS

These episodes are a two-part series featuring conversations between the WhyPAR Podcast’s new co-host, Maddy Ross and five youth researchers: Valeria Pineda, Lainey Rios, Luisa Gonzalez, Jaden McGregor, and Annie Silva.

In Part One, the five youth researchers reflect on their experiences in a school-based YPAR project, Youth Solidarities Across Boundaries (YSAB), a collaboration between the Urban Indigenous Education Centre (UIEC) of the Toronto District School Board (TDSB) and the Youth Research Lab to convene Latinx and Indigenous high school students in T’karonto to understand and address the challenges youth face in schools. 

In Part Two, the five youth researchers discuss their most recent YPAR project conducted in the summer of 2020 that explored the experiences of Indigenous and Latinx youth living in T’karonto during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Valeria Pineda (she/her)

I am 21 years old and I recently graduated from a Social Service Worker program for Immigrants and Refugees, and I am currently working as a Youth Support Worker at a non-profit organization. I was born in Mexico and migrated to Canada with my family at a young age and have grown up in Toronto ever since. My experience being raised as a Mexican immigrant has definitely influenced my choice to work with marginalized communities. I was able to use my desire to work in social justice, research and community with the YPAR group for Indigenous and Latinx students. 

Lainey Rios

My name is Lainey Rios. I am 18 years old and identify as Latinx as my family originates from Mexico. I love to learn, spend time with family, and enjoy being involved in my community or in other programs, like YPAR. I am in my second year of the biological science program at the University of Guelph. I am currently working towards achieving high grades, expanding my knowledge in the science field and completing my undergraduate degree. I enjoy studying the sciences because it relates to everyday life and helps build my understanding of the world we live in. I have been working with YPAR for 3 years now and have really enjoyed my time with the program. Through YPAR I have learned many things through the research projects I've participated in, such as how much I love being part of research.

 Luisa Gonzalez

My name is Luisa Karime Gonzalez, I am 19 years old, my pronouns are she/her. I identify with the LatinX community as my parents are both from Guatemala. Currently I am in my second year at Ryerson University obtaining a Bachelor of Social Work. I am very grateful for the opportunities of participating in multiple YPAR projects 

Jaden McGregor

Hello Aniin my English name is Jaden Mcgregor and my Spirit name is Wasseyaa giiwe nibin which translates to light of the late summer. I was born in Toronto but my ancestors come from Manitoulin Island which is a few hours north of Toronto in Lake Huron. I’m also from The Island Nation Of Jamaica and therefore identify as Afro-Indigenous. Currently, I study at the University of Waterloo in the Geography and Aviation program which combines pilot training and an environmental studies degree. In my free time, I am primarily a freelance photographer who focuses on portrait landscape and street photography. Working with YPAR has been an amazing opportunity that has strengthened my research skills as well as my curiosity. I want to thank everyone who I have worked with for their passion and their curiosity. Miigwech

 Annie Silva

My name is Annie Melisa Silva Borda, I am 19 years old. I identify as a Latinx, born in Colombia and then moved to Canada a couple years later. This past year I finished my first year at the University of Toronto in the Arts and Science Faculty. I enjoyed it very much, I learned a lot of new things and accomplished another goal of mine. I love playing sports, learning and being part of making a change. Having the chance to share our project and talk about it in depth has been an amazing experience and I’m glad we could shine a light on people's different experiences during COVID-19. 

This episode was hosted and directed by Madeleine Ross, produced by Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández and Sarah Switzer, and supported by Youth Research Lab Assistant Naima Raza.

REFERENCES AND FURTHER READING

Luisa Karime Gonzalez, Jaden McGregor, Lida Valeria Pineda Flores, Lainey Rios, Annie Silva, Kaitlind Peters, Rubén Gaztambide-Fernandez, Pedro Morán Bonilla, and Michael Carlson. “Indigenous and Latinx Youth Navigating the COVID-19 Pandemic.” in:cite journal 4 (2021): 64–97. https://doi.org/10.33137/incite.4.37162.

Michael Carlson. “Navigating COVID-19: A Story of Resilience. Youtube Video, 7:20. August 10, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r20B86CRm90

Episode 6: A Conversation Between Nicole Mirra, Antero Garcia and Melanie Bertrand

• Read Transcript

  Citation:

  Raza, Naima. ““Getting to the point where we erase the Y the P and the A”: A Conversation between Nicole Mirra, Antero Garcia and Melanie Bertrand.” Produced by Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández and Sarah Switzer at The Youth Research Lab. The WhyPAR Podcast. March 30, 2021. Podcast, MP3 audio, https://youthresearchlab.org/whypar

  Note on attribution:

  When citing the ideas and/or when quoting material from this podcast, please attribute the ideas to the speaker(s) and, whenever possible, note the timestamp or the line where the words quoted can be found. We recommend that you draw on the style conventions typically used for “secondary sources,” such as “quoted in” (Chicago Style) or “as cited in” (APA), and that you cite the source as listed above.

  Host: Welcome to The WhyPAR podcast, a project of the Youth Research Lab at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. 

  Music

  Host: In the WhyPAR podcast, youth participatory action research practitioners discuss the ethical dimensions of conducting YPAR.  In our podcast, we explore issues of co-leading YPAR projects, building relationships, power dynamics, and sharing our work together. The Youth Research Lab is located in Toronto on the traditional territories of the Huron-Wendat, the Seneca, and most recently, the Mississaugas of the Credit River.  

  Antero: Probably if you’re doing YPAR correctly, if there is something like correctly, you’re probably pissing off somebody, right? Like at some point, or you’re doing it wrong…

  Host: Welcome everyone! My name is Naima, and I’m the host of the WhyPAR podcast. I’m a YPAR practitioner and a graduate assistant at the Youth Research Lab. Today’s episode features a conversation between Nicole Mirra, Antero Garcia and Melanie Bertrand. Nicole, Antero, and Mel are YPAR practitioners and professors at Rutgers University, Stanford University, and Arizona State University respectively. In this conversation, they are going to be discussing the ethical commitments and the politics of knowledge dissemination in YPAR. They are going to be discussing: What are the opportunities and tensions of conducting YPAR in schools? How can YPAR expand the definition of what counts as research, and how can we ensure that YPAR serves purpose beyond academic and towards liberation? What are the tensions of conducting YPAR when its labour benefits adult researchers? This conversation was recorded at Stanford University, and with that, let’s jump in!

  Melanie: I'm Melanie Bertrand of Arizona State University and I'm here with Dr. Nicole Mirra of Rutgers University and Dr. Antero Garcia of Stanford University. Thank you so much for joining me in this podcast. We're so excited to hear about your work. To start off with, could you tell me a little bit about what brought you to YPAR youth participatory action research?

  Nicole: Sure. I'll start off. I was a high school English teacher before I decided to go back to graduate school. And as I taught high school English, I recognized that oftentimes my students were not given opportunities to express their voices civically about things that were happening in their lives. And so that was one of the, I was kind of curious about how I could do that better as a teacher, and how to create more opportunities for young people to have a say in the, the world around them. So that's the kind of driving force that took me back to graduate school. And I ended up at UCLA, the University of California, Los Angeles.

  Antero: Woo

  Melanie: Woohoo

  Nicole: And when we, when I got there, I didn't quite realize at the time exactly what kind of, what kind of an amazing youth participatory action research collaborative had already been going on there for almost 10 years at that point, which I think is probably one of the longest running YPAR collaboratives that I know of in existence. And my advisor, Dr. John Rogers, and Dr. Ernest Morrell were the folks running the, what was called the Council of Youth Research. And so I was able to be slowly apprenticed into this community of practice that had already been going on with teachers from across Los Angeles, 30 young people from South and East Los Angeles. And it was the first time I had really been able to snap out of the teacher mentality, which even though, even well intentioned, I think I still believed in kind of teachers, transmitting or helping young people gain knowledge. And it was the first time I had truly been, kind of shaken awake to flip my entire paradigm and see young people being the experts, and the producers of knowledge. And so being in that community is kind of how I got my start into YPAR.

  Melanie: That’s cool. 

  Antero: Yeah. I don't have anything to add. This is the, like Nicole, I was a former high school English teacher and ended up going into UCLA where I also met a few. John Rogers wasn't my advisor, but Ernest Morrell was my advisor, so we were, we were nemeses and as a result.

  Nicole: Pretty much. 

  Antero: But I do remember as a high school English teacher that        students, oftentimes they would have some, maybe it’s called an inquiry project or a, we call it today, a project-based learning project, whatever, whatever the sexy thing is that you're going to call kids doing research in schools. And oftentimes that would mean that kids would get really excited. Some kids would get very excited about doing a thing and trying to instantiate some kind of new possibility, or change something. And would very quickly hit the wall of the limits of what a class project can do and feel frustrated in a way that feels very defeatist about what are the expectations around supporting youth engagement, civic participation, something like action research. And it didn't feel like YPAR in establishing particular kinds of research traditions might have been a new kind of possibility. It was also definitely language I wasn't familiar with when I was entering graduate school. And I think, you know, if we started in 2008, is that, is that right?

  Nicole: Yup.

  Melanie: Me seven, you both eight.

  Antero:  So if we started in the second half of the first,  first decade of the 21st century, whew, it's terrible. Alright, then, that seemed like when the language of YPAR was actually getting formulated. So it was just fortuitous timing. And then I think the three of us and others getting to work with John and Ernest and with the teachers around Los Angeles and the students in Los Angeles, just like, there's like a really nice robust network of organic intellectualism, organic leadership that was kind of emerging across these spaces. And that felt like generative.

  Melanie: Uh hum. Yeah, it was, I feel like it was a pretty amazing time both there and just across the country. You know, that revolution, Revolutionizing Education book came out in 2008 I think. 

  Nicole: And as did Jeff and Jeff Duncan-Andrade and Ernest’s book. And so these two big statements of YPAR in 2008 and now it’s been fascinating to see over these past 11 years the way it's been taken up and in ways that I think are both really transformative but also troubling in some ways too.

  Antero knows all about my, my, we have soapbox, we talk often about this is that, and we learned this through all of our graduate program is that, you know, public schooling and the structures of schooling, the stratifying nature of schooling is a really, really powerful force. It has a huge gravitational pull and schooling has the ability to take many transformative practices that happen out in the world that are organic and, critical and abled. And they can often like suck the life out of them and suck the revolutionary power out of them and make them conform to the rhythms and structures of schooling. And I do worry that over time, as I start to see some, um, well intentioned action civics programs that are trying to kind of take that spirit of YPAR and figure out how to kind of bring it to scale and make it work within the constraints of public schooling, that that process of trying to be pragmatic and make it work can sometimes, the pendulum can swing too far into making it like fit school and that robs YPAR of what makes it special in the first place. And then winds up kind of reverting back to what Antero was saying that we had before of like doing a research project. The typical research project is looking for sources. Now we can just replace it with these different steps that seem like youth voice but are actually not rocking the boat or disturbing the system at all, which was the whole purpose. And so I get, I'm very excited to see YPAR, gaining traction. And sometimes it seems like it doesn't need to be, we don't need to keep talking about it, but then you realize that every time it's being shared with a new teacher or a new group of students, you need to keep reminding of that, of that kernel about critical consciousness and youth voice and actually being subversive because if not, it can very easily just become like another set of steps that are problematic.

  Melanie: Right. And even having a teacher who is the current teacher of any youth who are in this process, you know, having a teacher who's has to give a grade, forced to give a grade, you know, within standards.

  Antero: Yeah. I mean, I think that's, this has been the tension. I don't, I don't know if I ever landed on that decision on this, but of how much can YPAR actually exist within a formal schooling process right around both the structures of school, around the power dynamics of classrooms where you're giving a grade at least within, you know, traditional Western definitions of what school looks like. How much can the school actually be, um, the platform on which you can do YPAR is the question. And I think there's other side of, if it's about developing critical consciousness, consciousness and being subversive, right. At what point does the visibility of doing YPAR in a school run in odds with trying to be an intentionally grounding theories that are subversive to dominant mainstream power, right. That it's sooner or later someone if you're, if, probably if you're doing YPAR correctly, if there is something like correctly, you're probably pissing off somebody, right? Like at some point, or you're doing it wrong. I don't know. Maybe it's, it's too much of a pronouncement.

  Melanie: Oh no. I mean I agree with that.

  Antero: Yeah. 

  Melanie: I do. Because, I mean, well it depends on whose version of YPAR you’re doing, but I mean in terms of the YPAR that's founded in critical perspectives that is out to change the status quo. And so that is bound to piss off people in authority positions.

  Antero: Yeah. Yeah. 

  Nicole: And then I think, you know, as and when I start to get, go down the road of being kind of pessimistic or frustrated about the way YPAR gets packaged, I did have to remind myself that like, like we were saying, we kind of think that this is like, like we've been lucky enough to be in with mentors that have been teaching us about this for the past decade, but we can't just cede public school spaces either. So like even if, even if I get frustrated about a version of YPAR that is not like, there's no ideological purity in schools and we all know that as former teachers, is that we are agents of a very flawed system at the same time that we are trying to transform it. But if we just say that like YPAR is a critical practice that conflicts with the structures of schooling and therefore it shouldn't even be in schooling at all. Then we just cede schools to just always be these like deadening spaces. And so we have to believe at some point that there is some space for true education within schooling. And so I think living in those tensions and not necessarily always seeing them as like failed YPAR, but seeing it as like, I don't know.

  Antero: Because YPAR?

  Nicole: Finding those generative, yeah. The generative generative moments that happen in that friction, maybe we can keep on interrogating it. So at the same time, I think maybe it is a good thing that even in, cause, I mean we have to remember that for a lot of school districts and for a lot of teachers just even letting young people name a topic and research, it could even be a small move that is a radical act.

  Melanie: Yeah. Right. And is often blocked. I'm going to give a shout out to Van Lack and Michelle Fines’ recent publication which talks about this very thing, a project, where, you know, the, the youth had wanted to do a project on disproportionality and discipline and racist discipline practices and they were blocked by a school district.

  Antero: Oh really?

  Melanie: Uh huh…

  Nicole: And that's that. Good. You know, the tension of, and we've talked about this a little bit, like I think the rhetoric of schooling has gotten to a place where principals and district folks and admin like, now know that that is an appropriate thing to say. Like you hear a lot of like mission statements or vision statements that want to talk about youth voice and want to talk about civic engagement. And it's now become, I don't know if it's a buzzword or a, but it definitely feels like more normative to say that now that's very interesting to see what happens when the rubber hits the road and we say we want to give young people a voice. But when they use their voices to critique adults, adults often come down with the hammer and kind of like squash that because to truly honour voice means that you have to be ready to be a learner and to be critiqued and to change. And if we just want youth voice in theory and not in practice, then again we're…  YPAR can be a powerful way of revealing those contradictions.

  Antero: I think there's also, there's not a point to say, Oh I agree with all of that and I think the pendulum can also swing the other way and you can also hear of out-of-school YPAR work that is entirely, not that, not that the motivation isn't, isn't correct. Right. But is purely-activist oriented and like de-centres the R of YPAR, right? That like I think the intellectual premise of doing YPAR oftentimes is theoretically bound and is about, you know, research process steps enough times that can also get left behind. Like, I think there are, there's a range of what of what it’s showing up with and part of it is this kind of watering down in the tensions of doing it in school. And on the other side there could be, you know, purely action, which, which in some ways is just as beautiful. But is it YPAR is also just a question to think maybe.

  Melanie: Right. Well we kind of have come to this already.

  Antero: We did it. 

  Melanie: So considering all these tensions that we were just talking about, what kind of ethical commitments do you bring to the work, personally?

  Nicole: I think the, the first ethical commitment of why power has to be about transforming what we believe youth can do and how we see youth epistemologies. And I think it sounds pretty simple to just say we have to value youth voice, but it's something that I've had to continually like remind myself of, as I fall back into, I mean as a teacher and now as a, as a professor and as a writer in academic journals, it becomes so easy, you know, that's a very seductive pull to like fall back into traditional hierarchies of knowing and how knowledge should get represented and how it should be written and how my voice can so easily, without me realizing it consciously come back out and kind of reshape or reinterpret what young people are doing or saying in ways that that is not their reality or was not their preference. And so it sounds easy to say youth, but I think that ethical commitment is an ongoing lifelong like constant process of de-centering myself revisiting and understanding that how youth the whole, like we're not giving a voice to the voiceless. They have voices and we all need to be the ones that change to be worthy of listening to them. And I think that's a constant process. But at the same time, and we've talked about this a lot, like the role of adults and youth and YPAR. I think sometimes that desire to value youth voice and to honour youth voice can sometimes lead to like the idea that we have to completely absent our adult perspectives and like step back completely out of the way and let young people take total control of the entire process. But then as Antero was saying, the, the research element means that we do have to see each other as partners in some sense and we as adults do have something to offer in the process and we have to use our expertise to help scaffold and support youth inquiry. So it's not about like denigrating adult knowledge. It's about reshaping and reformulating what our role is to imagine a new educational space that is more collaborative and mutually, like, harmonizing.

  Antero: Yeah. There are some folks who talk about it not as YPAR, but as IPAR right, in this intergenerational. And I think that, you know, I think some of the most rewarding work that I've seen come out of the work with council is its impact on the teachers that participate in it.  And on us. Right. I think a lot of art, as the three of us around this table, like it's, this has helped shape careers, right? 

  I think that, in terms of the teachers that we've worked with, there's, there's a lot of changing of, you know, a shifting of consciousness now understanding of our relationship with young people that I think is particularly powerful. I do think one of the tensions that I think about around these ethical commitments is as research, what's this look like when we write it up in journal articles, in chapters and books. So for example, right, like Nicole, Ernest and I worked on a book about the council that includes lots of people's voices, but the end of the day you know, it's three adult academics whose names are on the cover of that book. And we can think about, you know, also we've all written journal articles that are similar to that. And oftentimes we talk about this as research, but then once we've done the YPAR project, then the adults shut the door and open up the laptop and write about the YPAR. And I think this is, and there's no, I mean, some of us are that the job demands, right? That other people, you know, we don't get paid for writing these articles. And so, but we get compensated in terms of our labor in ways that young people aren't. So we just think about there's some ethical muddiness that I think is necessary in terms of furthering this work and thinking about how it's heard, in snobby journals that three people read, right? Like this is just kind of the stakes of this profession. But it's, it's a piece I just don't, I don't have like a good answer around but I think about, I don't know if either of you. Yeah.

  Nicole: I think that that, that ethical concern about like authorship and published publication, I always try to remind myself that sometimes I feel, I think previously I felt like the way to deal with that is that we have to co-author with young people and then I realized as I've gone on that that is powerful. It's probably more powerful to, to shake the academy up than it is to shake up young people's lives. Cause then I remember that like, Oh if we say like, oh well, I want to include you as an author. And then when young people say, well that journal article doesn't have any currency in my life whatsoever. So if that's what you need to do your work and you're going to get it out to this community engaging in like dialogic data generation with young people, making sure their voices are heard, whether they are listed as authors or not.

  Antero: Yeah.

  Nicole: Like that's not necessarily about bringing them into the academic journal space because then that's again, just young adults, we're, we're making this matter in their lives when it doesn't. So I tried to also think it was, okay, if I'm going to write this article for this adult audience about this work, how can I make sure that at the same time simultaneously I'm going to… 

  Antero: Make a Tik Tok!

  Nicole: A Tik Tok with young people like or like somehow expresses knowledge in a way that has relevance and authenticity and meaning to the young people. And if that means going back and giving a presentation at their school, if that's something they, you know, whatever they name as the audience, they want to, like, peers on social media, at the school with parents, with communities. And I think that recognizing that our ways of disseminating in the academy mean one thing, they don't mean the only thing. And to make sure that we are making sure our research spans modalities and spans audiences. And so I think that's if, if in the ethics, like if we can keep coming back to those letters of YPAR, of the Y and the P and the A and the R, and we make sure that everything we do is of a participatory nature and it has a purpose beyond the academic, like the academia, then I feel like that that can be the ethical north star that keeps us kind of coming back to the right place. And I always remember, cause I always remember that like even with teachers I've written with and students and they'll be like, that's okay if you need to take, as the adult, you need to take the lead on this piece because this piece isn't going to, I don't need this in my life. But to make sure that we don't just say that that's the only thing. And it's unfortunate that in our academy it's still not necessarily, it's seen as doing double the work for not, as you know, the only part that matters is the journals as opposed to the community work. I feel like we're slowly trying to, as a field appreciate community-engaged scholarship more. And that's a great thing. But it’s a slow moving process. And so until that press time comes, we just have to do double the work if that's what matters to us and if that's what we believe is valid.

  Melanie: It's a good way to put it. I mean, I'm hearing reciprocity in there, you know, and what it means to, and not, and I guess, defining what reciprocity means to everyone involved. 

  Antero: Yeah.

  Melanie: But making sure that we understand the definition of reciprocity from the youth and whatever, whoever else might be involved. 

  Anyways, so yeah, I think, I think that that's a conversation that's gonna continue to grow in Ed leadership as it, as the presence of YPAR continues to grow because I think that there's a lot of enthusiasm and I think, a lot of graduate students are beginning to use it. So I know that another generation of professors in Ed leadership are going to be using this as a tool.

  Nicole: And I think for all of us, like I always, I've been recently thinking about this idea of like that we shouldn't need the Y, the P and the A, like if the more times we have to like list out all those different parts that research should value youth and it should be participatory and it should be action, right? Like I guess the goal would be to eventually erase those and if that, and then redefine and make that a normative idea of what research is and that should be our goal is to actually like not have the need for those letters anymore to define what research, like the fact that they were needed in the first place just shows that that research as we know it in the academy and in the Western tradition was born out of inequitable and oppressive… 

  Melanie: Colonization

  Nicole: ways of naming and forms of ontology and epistemology. And I feel like that's the, hopefully YPAR can erase the need for its own existence if it's really successful to make it just research.

  Antero: That’s some heavy shit, I like that, that’s good.

  Melanie: Me too. Yeah. (laughing)

  Antero: That’s cool. Boom.

  Nicole: It got real after these plantain chips. (laughing)

  Melanie: Podcast listeners we do have some plantain chips. (laughing)

  Antero: The plantain chips came out.

  Nicole: They helped my brain. (laughing)

  Antero: Get some more plaintain for this person. (laughing)

  Nicole: Somebody get her some plantain chips. (laughing)

  Melanie: What are some of the ways that you are or have shared the results of YPAR projects?

  Antero: So some of it is in the those traditional fuddy duddy. Is that a word I can use? Fuddy. That's the word, right?

  Nicole: Wow, that’s haberdashery. Wait, that's, that's hat-making. (laughing)

  Antero: We mainly share our journal articles with hat-makers. That really fell off the rails quickly and kind of old normative journals and prohibitively expensive books. Right? Like this is the kind of, that is the gold standard of how you try to stay in academia. Right? So being at, you know, a snobby, elitist institution, you need to do some of that to go to stay employed. That is, I think that's, that is, but also the other side of that, it's not just about playing this game, but that is if we are trying to move to that kind of shift in what research counts as, as Nicole mentioned, that is how you do it within this field, right? Like you need to take space within traditional academic journals? Push on,  what's counted as methodology and, and what sounds, so that that is one space for the publishing or I think the other kinds of places where we've seen trickling of writing is in practitioner journals for teachers. Right? So thinking about teacher perspectives on YPAR, Nicole, Danielle Filipiak and I got to write an article for an English journal, where we've done this a couple of other venues too. I think those are nice places for teachers to be able to hear what this work looks like in ways that feels accessible to them. Maybe I'll pause there.

  Nicole: Yeah. And when I think back to how the young people have chosen or how we've guided young people through the council to share their, disseminate their work. I remember, I think it always sticks with me as a grad student of how, exciting I thought it was that during one of our years of the council, we were preparing as a group to present to a City Hall and to, to go up to Sacramento and talk to state representatives about their research. But we, we stopped and we kind of thought about the fact that those are important audiences to be able to influence state politics, to be able influence the school district. But we wanted to make sure that we also honored and held space for young people to be sharing this work with their families and their community. And I remember that year we organized a presentation at the UCLA Labor Center, which is located in downtown Los Angeles and was a logistically an easier place for a lot of families to get to. And then we made sure, this is a way, I think that universities can leverage their resources. So we made sure that there were, translation, there's translation equipment available and I remember folks wearing the headsets so that parents could, those that were speaking Spanish could understand when, young people were sharing their work. And I just at that moment, that all has always stuck with me as like a, like a really beautiful way to make sure that all could be included and that like… reminds me that as we are agitating for change, the real joy of YPAR and the where we are transforming lives is in young people's critical consciousness. And then being able to share that, intergenerationally, and to value at the end we valued like the honor, the families that were in the room that were allowing young people to take this journey. Just really seeing it as a community endeavour. Those moments felt like something special that felt like what, what makes YPAR revolutionary and those ways of disseminating were always more powerful in some ways and would prepare us then for the struggle that would come when young people would present to adults who in, you see this Mel has come out in your work a lot, which I think was so powerful is to see the, the ways that adults would sometimes applaud young people as if they are kind of patronizingly like applaud them for their work but never take it seriously or plan to do anything with it. Yeah. And young people were prepared and oftentimes people are worried about doing YPAR and they come to us and say like, well aren't young people are going to get angry or discouraged when they start learning about these systemic forces working against them. And what if they do real research and no one changes anything like, isn't that discouraging? I think the fact that we foreground that process of love and community and the fact that we would have a unity circle before every presentation where Ernest or any one of us would, all the teachers would any whoever was moved would speak and we would all kind of have that, that reminder that, you know, we are changing the world through each of our own minds. That's what gets you the endurance, to not be discouraged when you then see the reluctance of the systems to change and the reluctance of people to open their minds and their hearts. And that's where I find like the, the most powerful kinds of dissemination.

  Antero: And that is, that is the dissemination itself, right? That is the, the move from megas… that that is critical consciousness to some extent. It's nice. Yeah.

  Nicole: It was happening and then, I mean there's other things we could share. Like, you know, the, we tried to use the online space and Antero and I have been thinking about that more now as we've moved forward. The council did create blogs and we tried to create some online dialogue around their work of, letting young people take the lead in defining the work and writing about it. And then sometimes even, academic researchers would engage with their work on blogs. So I know the author Patrick Finn would respond to some of the work that manual arts students were doing, the blog and kind of creating the conversation on their terms. You know, that's the, that's the push and pull between the academic journal life and then like more public facing forms of dissemination, which I think are all important.

  Antero: I think there's something, so even if we go to the, like the boring academic kinds of presentations, right? So when we take students to AERA for example, I always felt like those, when you're, when you're in the room, I feel like a lot of the researchers who show up to those sessions. Often times there are people we know when they're committed or excited about this work, but it feels like those presentations oftentimes start with a, Look how cute it is that these kids are doing this work in this adult space. And that's fine that it starts there, but it never ends there. Right. That there's always, at least that I've seen, there was always a turning point partway through where it's no longer listening to kids deliver something like a book report and now it is, it is seen as valid and equal in the eyes of an audience that aren't necessarily parts of this, this group. And I always feel like that is the dissemination of this realization of, of what's happened, like of, of that, of seen the work in action feels particularly real and relevant, and exciting.

  Melanie: I think at AERA that happens. But sometimes, you know, in the, in the Council of Youth Research, I was often interviewing teachers who were in those presentations and stuff. And that's what I continued to do and, and where I am now. But, I feel like it does shift for some people. And then for some people they're just stuck. 

  Antero: Why do you think that happens?

  Melanie: I don't know. Some people are defensive, some people don't take, don't see the research as credible. 

  Antero: Yeah. 

  Melanie: Well, and I think those intersect, you know, if the research is critiquing that person somehow, you know, if they're, if they're seeing it as in defensive,

  Antero: As an attack…

  Melanie: as an attack, then they of course they're more likely to see it as not credible.

  Nicole: It takes a level of humility as educators to listen to the fact that something that you've dedicated your life to or the good intentions that you have could actually not be accomplishing what you intended or that you are. And all of us, I mean even those of us that do YPAR, we are all implicated as agents of the state and I am upholding institutions that I try to critique at the same time. And that can be really, easy to become defensive because it's, it takes a lot to recognize that you're part of that and to accept that humbly and not try to justify or make rationalizations for it. But if we can get to that place of kind of seeing the systems that we are complicit in and then understanding the agency that we have to do something about it, I think that's sort of the power can come from. And I think the idea of the marching orders has always been something that kind of has stayed with all of us through from the time we started with, Ernest Morrell would remind the young people when we were in those unity circles every time before we started presenting that, you know, our job is to shake people up. Our job is to make sure that no one leaves any of our presentations without marching orders, knowing that they have a particular job that they need to do. You aren't. Your job is not done as an adult when you listen to the young people's presentation. That is the beginning of your journey and it's their responsibility to take that up and for young people to clarify for them. So that's why their presentations would have like young people, here's what you can do, teachers, here's what you can do, administrators. Everyone has a job to do in this like ongoing struggle. I think that's the, the ultimate goal of dissemination is to move hearts and minds and to hopefully create some of that empathy that could help us to understand that we don't need to feel guilty or defensive or angry about white supremacy, the systems that we were a part of. You use that feeling to then like start dismantling them collaboratively. That's the goal.

  Melanie: Yes. 

  Antero: Musical.

  Nicole: No problem.

  Melanie: Along similar lines, how would you make decisions or how do you make decisions about sharing youth knowledge? So if you could give a picture of decision-making processes, like walk us through perhaps an example of how a group has made a decision around the disseminations or opportunities or challenges.

  Nicole: And I know this is separate from the Council, but so Antero and I are now working on another, I'm kind of trying to reimagine YPAR in different kind of like digital cross-country context through a project called the Digital Democratic Dialogue 3D Project. And actually when you asked that question, I thought about the presentations that we've been starting to do, initial presentations with some of the data that we're just kind of working through right now. Yeah. I don't know if you remember Antero, at the one of your presentations you were showing what a young person had said on Edmodo. So somebody that, this is a group where young people were. 

  Antero: Around gun violence?

  Nicole: Yeah, there were, there was a topic around gun violence. So young people around the country who were in high school are communicating with each other using digital platforms about civic issues they care about. And we're allowing the dialogue to emerge organically based on their interests. And we saw young people beginning to talk about like what their opinions were about guns. And we had some young people living in communities where they felt strongly about gun rights. And other students who were much more concerned about gun violence and a student was sharing, like volunteered to share with other young people a personal experience with gun violence. And if you remember, I, I think you actually blocked out in your presentation. You covered and didn't let the audience see the actual details of our story.

  Antero: Yeah, it is. It's very, you know, I would say most other journal articles, you would be like in the very much like a, as a news favour person I think leads a lead kind of thing. Yeah. Like this would be like the eye-catching quote that pulls people in and Oh, that's so painful. And it feels really invasive? Right? That one, you know, I think Nicole helped facilitate building these powerful relationships across these school sites over a year for the student to be willing to disclose this information with these other peers. It wasn't for us, right? And so,

  Nicole: And the point can be made without the kind of like exposing young people's pain. Like I think too much still in academia or another in many parts of education. It's like leveraging young people's pain to gain attention or to gain views or to gain.

  Antero: It's kinda, it's kinda like we never got past the, the applying for college. Right. You talk about, you know, I grew up in this community or my grandmother died and right. Like we start with the pain and when we exercise our pain in order to get entree into college or whatever it is, it seems like we still do that, right? We, we, we put this sad stuff on the page that we can get tenure. Is that what happens? Is that, is that the grossest thing? The second great.

  Nicole: So that means it makes, it's not only about like lost us making choices about like how to disseminate and what to disseminate, but like thinking about like what do audiences deserve to see of other young people's humanity. Like, it's not, I wouldn't feel comfortable sharing some of that stuff because I don't think audiences would be able to, I mean, I have to do the work to contextualize it if I want them to see something in that, but I worry that that takes a lot of work that is often beyond the amount of attention most people will give to it. Then in that case, you don't really deserve to see this young person's full humanity because you're not prepared to be worthy of it. And so then we have to make those choices of, can the point be made without you having to see this like story of trauma or pain, when you're, people don't always get to make that choice for themselves of what gets shared with others. And so we also have to be very careful as researchers in the explaining how the academic process works. Like I've, you know, to do this bigger project and in the council we had to get, institutional approval from school districts and from the university, but we also had to have young people signing assent forms and their parents signing consent forms. And really trying to explain to them what those things mean. Being really transparent with them about like, what this industry is in which their voices are going to be currency, is much more than just asking them to like get this form signed and bring it back to me. That takes a lot of, like explicit conversation.

  Melanie: Yes, definitely. Do you have any more, any more that you'd like to say about the 3D project or any other type of YPAR projects that you, either of you or both of you have going on?

  Antero: No.

  Nicole: And then the tape ends there. There we go. No, I think it's a really important project to be. I think it's important to be talking to folks like John Rogers and I, a few years ago, 

  Melanie: That’s a great piece.

  Nicole: We integrated a bunch of, we interviewed like a 25 university faculty around the country who do YPAR to kind of tease out some of these tensions and I think again we're finding this, it’s a generative tension of like working within and without and preparing people to, for example, get into college and knowing that we are then like grooming them to keep participating in these systems that they are critiquing at the same time. But how to see that as a process of generation, as opposed to something that is like a giving in or negative or a sacrifice. Like I think that's, I'm just really fascinated in living in that tension. I think YPAR, because it creates conversations like this, that's what can make it so important to hopefully get to that point where we erase the Y the P and the A.

  Melanie: I want to thank you so much, both so much for that. And it's been a lot of fun and yeah.

  Antero: Thanks Mel.

  Nicole: We love talking about this with you. UCLA forever.

  Antero: Woo. UCLA is the best!

  Music

  Host: Thank you so much for joining us on this episode of the WhyPAR podcast. I learned so much from Nicole, Antero and Mel’s conversation. Some of the key takeaways that I’m still reflecting upon include seeing youth participation in systems they are critiquing as generative, rather than negative. How YPAR is about changing the world through critical consciousness and building processes of love and community with each other. And how YPAR requires adults being mindful of how they shape youth voice while also recognizing their role in supporting youth consciousness building.

  Music

Details

This episode is the first featuring conversation between Mel Bertrand, Nicole Mirra, and Antero Garcia. In this episode, Mel, Nicole, and Antero discuss ethical commitments and dissemination of youth knowledge while conducting YPAR. They discuss the opportunities and tensions of conducting YPAR within schools; and how YPAR must both expand the definition of what counts as research and also serve purpose beyond academia; the tensions of conducting YPAR when its’ labour benefits adults.

Nicole Mirra is an assistant professor of urban teacher education in the Graduate School of Education at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. She previously taught high school English Language Arts in Brooklyn, New York and Los Angeles, California. Her research explores the intersections of critical literacy and civic engagement with youth and teachers across classroom, community, and digital learning environments.

Antero Garcia is an assistant professor in the Graduate School of Education at Stanford University. His work explores how technology and gaming shape learning, literacy practices, and civic identities. Based on his research focused on equitable teaching and learning opportunities for urban youth through the use of participatory media and gameplay, Antero co-designed the Critical Design and Gaming School--a public high school in South Central Los Angeles.

Melanie Bertrand is an associate professor at Arizona State University. Her research explores the potential of youth and community leadership to improve schools and challenge systemic racism and other forms of oppression in education. She applies cultural-historical activity theory to better understand how youth and community members engage in roles of activism, governance, and leadership within education.

This episode was hosted and directed by Naima Raza, produced by Ruben Gaztambide-Fernandez and Sarah Switzer, and supported by Youth Research Lab Research Assistants, Andrea Vela Alarcon and Madeleine Ross.

References and Further Reading

Duncan-Andrade, J., & Morrell, E. (2008). The art of critical pedagogy: Possibilities for moving from theory to practice in urban schools. Peter Lang.

Lac, V. T., & Fine, M. (2018). The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: An Autoethnographic Journey on Doing Participatory Action Research as a Graduate Student. Urban Education, 53(4), 562–583. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085918762491

Lac, V. T. (2019). The critical educators of color pipeline: Leveraging youth research to nurture future critical educators of color. The Urban Review. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-019-00507-4

Mirra, N., Filipiak, D., & Garcia, A. (2015). Revolutionizing inquiry in urban English classrooms: Pursuing voice and justice through Youth Participatory Action Research. English Journal, 105(2), 49–57.

Tuck, E., & Guishard, M. (2013). Uncollapsing ethics: Racialized sciencism, settler coloniality, and an ethical framework of decolonial participatory action research. In T. M. Kress, C. S. Malott, & B. J. Porfilio (Eds.),Challenging status quo retrenchment: New directions in critical qualitative research (pp. 3–27). Information Age Publishing, Inc.

Episode 5: How Youth Collectives Create Beauty, A Conversation Between Rangoato Hlasane and Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández

• Read Transcript

  Citation:

  Raza, Naima. ““Beauty emerges out of commitment”: How Youth Collectivities Create Beauty, A Conversation between Rangoato Hlasane and Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández (Part Three).” Produced by Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández and Sarah Switzer at The Youth Research Lab. The WhyPAR Podcast. March 2, 2021. Podcast, MP3 audio, https://youthresearchlab.org/whypar

  Note on attribution:

  When citing the ideas and/or when quoting material from this podcast, please attribute the ideas to the speaker(s) and, whenever possible, note the timestamp or the line where the words quoted can be found. We recommend that you draw on the style conventions typically used for “secondary sources,” such as “quoted in” (Chicago Style) or “as cited in” (APA), and that you cite the source as listed above.

  Host: Welcome to The WhyPAR podcast, a project of the Youth Research Lab at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

  Music

  Host: In the WhyPAR podcast, youth participatory action research practitioners discuss the ethical dimensions of conducting YPAR. In our podcast, we explore issues of co-leading YPAR projects, building relationships, power dynamics, and sharing our work together. The Youth Research Lab is located in Toronto on the traditional territories of the Huron-Wendat, the Seneca, and most recently, the Mississaugas of the Credit River. 

  Ra: So the program is not about the participants alone with the facilitators in the space. It's more of when people in their life, realize the commitment and therefore they themselves can communicate what is beautiful.

  Host: Hello everyone! My name is Naima, and I’m the host of the WhyPAR podcast. I am currently a graduate assistant here at the Youth Research Lab and I’m also a YPAR practitioner with experience working in schools.

  Today’s episode is the third in a three-part conversation between Rangoato Hlasane (or Ra) and Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández. Ra is a YPAR practitioner, co-founder of Keleketla! Library and a lecturer at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa. Rubén is a YPAR practitioner, the Director of the Youth Research Lab, and a professor at the University of Toronto. 

  In this episode, they’re going to be discussing how youth collectivities create beauty, and specifically, within Ra’s program, the Keleketla! Library in Johannesburg. As I mentioned in the last episode, Keleketla was based at Johannesburg’s historic Drill Hall between 2008-2015, and was actually the site where Nelson Mandela and 156 prominent freedom fighters were tried for treason in 1956. Keleketla! is now based at King Kong, a multidisciplinary arts space and concert venue which is also in Johannesburg. 

  Together, Ra and Rubén will explore: What does it mean to make things beautiful within youth collectives, particularly within a context of material precarity? How do we create, shift, and accumulate narratives in youth collectives? How are our ethical commitments to anti-racism challenged while facilitating youth collectives?

  This conversation was recorded outdoors in Johannesburg. 

  And with that, let’s jump in!

  Rubén: So I wanna, I wanna, let's, let's talk about beauty for a second. 

  Ra: Beauty? 

  Rubén: About beauty. Cause you talked about the importance of creating beautiful things. And, you know, a couple of times when we were talking about, during the, during the time together, last time we talked about the importance of design. Most of you were talking about... fonts, coherence, coherence to artifacts, all these, all these elements that go into the production of objects that we want to share. 

  And there's a tension isn't there between…? Well, you know, first of all, I think there's a different understanding of beauty that could be operating here. But, on the one hand, there is this sort of spontaneity that characterizes, the work that you're describing, this, this being able to take advantage of this precious moments of being, being in the right place at the right time, you know, the person who asks that was hears their children's singing and wants to do something... the relationships that emerge and being able to take care of that. 

  And things that are really out of your control in terms… in terms of being able to do good design, which is not supposed to be out of your control. Planning is all about deciding what elements you want to bring together, right? And, and, and, and, and what you're describing. And in my experience of doing this work, it's, it's not designed, you know, it's, it's very much about, about, about taking advantage of opportunities. So I wonder about how do we come, how do we understand beauty in that context? So how do we understand beauty, or making things beautiful, both its importance, its relevance for the people that we care about, that we're committed to and, and how it, how it works in relationship to spontaneity, to relationships, to making do with what's available, particularly in a context of material precarity. Does that make sense? 

  Ra: For me, I think what has been evident is that, beauty emerges out of commitment. Really, you know? And therefore, beauty  emerges out of that which has been accumulating over time, not accumulation in the capitalist sense, but, in the sense of, of building an environment for narrative plus stories, that's what it's been beautiful. That's, that's really what has been beautiful. 

  So for the parents to come and they're like pointing teachers towards, towards that day of showcase. You see pictures of the heads of children, and you see parents carrying their children, and waiting… that’s beauty. It’s that a group of people have been able to persuade each other about the importance of something. So people have been able to bring each other to an understanding of what this thing is. So in that sense, it's not that the production, the show, the showcase is necessarily beautiful… 

  So the program is not about the participants alone with the facilitators in the space. It's more of when people in their life realize the commitment and therefore they themselves can communicate what is beautiful. But then when then we make things like this that are beautiful design. It's not that you're always put in. There is because actually things have been accumulated to then be able to arrive at this. So then if you think about this past week and those postcards, it's not because they arrived out of nothing. They arrived out of the fact that actually so much has been generated that we really want to make the artifact that reflects the beauty of what happened.

  And in fact, the opposite of beauty that has led to this material that cannot be designed, the, the grandeur, the broader design, the previous design of being together, of generating this material. It's not so visible. And yet it is in a sense that now actually the artifacts themselves show the depth and the level of engagement, right? Even if we ourselves, we know that this is far from polished, it has typos… So the beauty is in that, and then, then to make the artifacts look beautiful, then becomes important in a place where, where people have been dehumanized. 

  So if you look at the Drill Hall as a space that is neglected a lot of that, then making the artifacts actually beautiful is important in that sense. So, so that's really how I think about beauty. The beauty is in the commitment, which means the resilience.

  Rubén: Right. 

  Ra: Which I'm resistant of because somehow Black people, or for the colonizer, there's always this thing about innovation as an outcome of resilience or something. There's always this thing whereby it'll be romanticized and essentialized that our beauty has to be made out of the fact that we had to be resilient and face adversity to arrive at beauty. So it's that balance. It's not an easy one, but, but for us to make sure that we make things really beautiful, it's actually to reinstate that actually we have it, you know, it's like when you're talking about resisting an attempt to think, but rather in place that we are thinkers, I used it in the classroom today, yeah. 

  Rubén: I want to, I want to go back to this idea of creating conditions for narratives to accumulate that you refer to us as a source of freedom of beauty. And also, I want to revisit this. I want to revisit that. And I want to revisit this, this tension around, around beauty merging out of struggle. And at the same time, not collapsing our entire condition of being to struggle, right? How do we, those of us who have experienced colonization in our skin, Black, Brown, Indigenous people? You know, then there, the narrative of beauty out of suffering is so compelling. And yet it's not all there is. 

  Not everything that we create is out of suffering. You know, our, our, our, our experience is not all suffering. And, and, and there's an ethic there, right? That I think, uh, oftentimes translates into making choices about who we allow in and who, and who we keep out of the spaces. Because if that understanding, right? If you are coming in with the idea that everything there is to work with here is suffering, then you're out.

  Ra: Yeah.

  Rubén: Anyways, we can go back to this, you know, creating the conditions for narratives to accumulate which is beautiful, and which is, I think… Let's talk a bit, let's talk about this idea. How do we create the conditions for narratives to accumulate? All right. Maybe that was not the words that you used, but it was something, something along…  That's how I remember it.

  Ra: They are. So, so there was a program that was formed by… so some of them started in 2008 when we started and others joined along the way. So one of them - and I keep referring to her, and now I'm going to name her cause she's in the book…  So one can cite her, there is a whole process there and a protocol - Emma Ramashala, she started the program in 2012 and this after, because she's been there since 2008 and she said that she came to me and said - it’s a respectability thing - so she, she calls me Uncle Ra. And she goes uncle Ra, like I want to start a program with all the, because there were many different programs, dance, music, whatever embed attempts. She was like really saying that they're going to start a program where all the participants from the different groups come together on Wednesday afternoons to just speak about our lives, that we are now in different programs. And we come together when it's time to showcase. But I want a space where we can now all talk, just talk, just talk and talk, and we’ll call it Teen Talk. Just to check on with each other and stuff like that.

  And for me that is like really one of the highlights, to feel like actually, here is a space. Yes, we are making art. And yes, we are learning some printmaking, some designs, some these and dance, et cetera. But actually, because we are not quite a coherent group of different collectives, perhaps now there is a need for us to come talk about what's going on with our lives as teenagers. Being misunderstood. But, but she felt that was important. And she felt that like, this is the space where this can happen. And, and I mean, that developed into, into all kinds of things, including another program that is actually called Teen Talk where they all came together. There's a YouTube of it. We should also send it to you, which, which was really significant where we invented this now new collectivity that imagines because of years of coalescing and knowing each other across programs in which the subject to us was that migration.

  And they, they basically were living there in Keleketla. That then got to a place where all we do is provide facilitation, but they design the whole program, right? And design being important here, because then this means that instead of a facilitator who may, or you know, who, who may provide a structure of some kind, they, they were able to be in a space where they draw from each others' knowledges and, and bring in, bring that together. So that's where basically prior knowledges, bodily, as well as conceptually are able to come together to… yeah, create a narrative of some kind. Right. So, so that is significant because particularly in this neighborhood, but also… in terms of the schooling system, where, where the ability to, to narrate multiple histories, it's not always possible. But also because of the time, speaking of teens who, because of age also feel misunderstood, this place also feels like a place where they can create a narrative of their own.

  And in this case then, and particularly because this participant comes and proposes that this is not a space to do different workshops and art. Rather, it is a place to speak, that the condition had been created, a collective, a sense of being together has been created so that people of the same age, in the sense, can come and share about their difference of, you know, spiritual being, mental being, and other beings. The space has been created for them to realize that actually now we can come together to discuss that.

  So, so that's the rationale that in order to create a diversity in conflict and, and dialogue, and debate and, and, and sort of relevance beyond a parochial view, you have to be in a collective. And also that the collective becomes a support structure, right? So let's say maybe when I speak about - and this has happened - where people, like when I speak about things that have to do with religion in the family and how that affects them, maybe in relation to gender, right? The collective then becomes the support structure where they can feel freer to express that, which they may not do at home. So then the collective becomes a supposed strategy in the sense, and, and that then enables a new narrative to emerge. So this, this, this creation of conditions for narrative to emerge and be central, and sort of lead, lead and go beyond the artifact has always been central. And at the same time, in a sense, release too, like the hip hop cipher.

  Rubén: Yes. And you talked about this structure of the hip hop cipher as sort of being the, in a sense, the source of that notion of collective. But I want to push back a bit on here because we also, we also don't enter the collective innocently. And I think the collective, you know…  I mean, in the sense, the arc is an interesting example. You know, we, we come together for a week, we're able to create a space that's very productive. That's really fulfilling. That creates a certain affect. It's also a space that it, that doesn't have to sustain itself over a long period of time. And in a sense, we almost cut it. You know, we, we, we are able to not enter into a space where conflict emerges. You know, I mean, it does, it does in the long distance and slowly, but, you know, there's a certain quality to a collective that has a beginning and an end and a contained space that allows for certain things to happen that, and in a sense to avoid, the ways in which collectives also invariably and perhaps naturally…

  Ra: Implode… 

  Rubén: Implode, or where sort of this, you know, relationships of power, sexism, homophobia, racism, colorism… You know… So I, you know, so I wonder about that too. I wonder about the, is there a danger in sort of romanticizing those collectives?  Is there, how do we navigate, again this is a facilitation question. How do we, how do we facilitate? Cause these are highly facilitated collectives in a sense and this, that space for the narrative to accumulate does not happen autonomously without the facilitation of someone like you. So how do we, so again, so yeah, so let's get to the facilitation question. How do we, how is it that, what are the skills, what are the techniques, what are the, what are the sort of really practical, embodied, verbal ways that we facilitate a collective process that doesn't decline back into the kinds of dynamics that happen outside of that collective. Right? That sustains that commitment to, to anti-racism. You see what I'm saying? 

  Ra: Yeah, yeah… 

  Rubén: Like, because otherwise, if we just say, “Oh, it's the collective and it's beautiful” and “these things happen”...  I fear that that, actually, my, my worry is that it invisibilized the really difficult work of actually facilitating. You see what I’m getting at?

  Ra: Yes. Yes. And to be honest, I'm struggling with this… there’s a thing of community of practice that, that is, that is quite undocumented and perhaps undertheorized, from, from here, from this region. But also, I think from the continent of Africa as well. And this is about who knows what, in relation to who’s - or maybe even in contrast to - who’s participating. And how these two can come together. Because just because somebody is doing the organizing of the facilitation, doesn't mean that they're doing the participation. So, you know, some people are there to, to immerse themselves and enjoy the work that has been organized by others, but actually they know what is required for the thing to be there. And for me, that's where in the work of facilitation becomes challenging, but also then can also lead to the change of narrative. Because the coming to practice is still [to] seek what they know, right? What they know should be happening. 

  And here I’m drawn to an experience when me and other colleagues were working on a festival out about Indigenous music in Limpopo, where I come from. It was organized by us and we, we are students, and actually we are also post-graduate students, we are concerned about the future of this Indigenous music, called Kiba Dinaka and we make a festival as a way of reviving that Kiba Dinaka. We're also thinking about Linda Smith in the process. So, so we make a festival. It was beautiful, right? Like it's absolutely great. And then during the festival, everybody's happy and one elder comes and asks, well, congratulates us, and asks when is going to be the next one, because yeah, we don't have enough. 

  And we say it was around November next year, next November, next year, same time. And he says no, no, no, no, no. That's not how you do it. This is an elder. He says, no, that's not how you do it. You must do this twice a year. One around May, to thank the ancestors for the rain, and then another one in September to ask the ancestors for the rain. And that was like really mind blowing for me because I was like, first and foremost, this challenges festival, um… You know, frequency, like, you know, in general, they’re annual or biannual or triannual. So, you know, so to do a festival twice a year is presenting a different kind of geopolitical knowledge system about what the festival does. And for me, this also one of the places where thinking with your texts becomes interesting in that, this is a festival where it's a music festival, so this is a musical practice, music and dance practice.

  But, but you know, it has a function of, of asking for the rain and thanking them, successful habits. Right? So, so, so there's, there's a, there's a cosmology there, which is about a symbolic practice that does something. Um, so there's a symbolism there, right there, which, which, which, you know, which we look at and we'll be like, okay, so here we are looking at symbolic practices that have protocols, right.

  You know, you must do it at this time at another time, let's do it this time. And this, this goes beyond funders calls, funders reports, what are you going to write for the funder? You know, you know, you write to the funder that it rains. So the festival is a success. The funder wants to see how many people came. Which are really like, really about this shifting of, of geographies, of knowledge, geographies of evaluation, of analysis. Of, of, of, yeah. So, but, but at the same time, this is operating when things are shifting. So young people want to start this thing and they want to call it the festival, but actually there's a name for such gathering of music in that tradition is called Kosha. It's not a festival, but we want to call it a festival because we want to bring, because we see it’s dying and we want to revitalize in terms of what Linda Tuhiwai Smith calls, in terms of those projects of decolonizing.

  Right? So in terms of revitalization, so we thought to name it this way, then it’s going, to bring these, these young audience who now bring other things that then change the narrative, which then desteps and disrupts the other participants in the community of practice who want to see something else. So, and this is where the tension of Indigeneity and, and other, I don't know, call them contemporary practices, come and complicate the question. 

  Rubén: Yeah, I'm not sure. I mean, I think, I think they're in a sense, in a sense they're both Indigenous practices. We might want to call one traditional and one contemporary one, and it's certainly a tension. Right? I mean, I think, yeah, this is the complicated question of the role of the Elders in culture. And…  recovering practices versus creating ones. Yeah. And how that sort of, even that recovery process is itself created creation. Like, you know, do it the same… 

  Music

  Host: Thank you so much for joining us on this episode of The WhyPAR podcast. So,I’m struck by the way that Ra talked about beauty as being created relationally - from engagement and bringing people together… I’m also still thinking about the conversation had around how things like beautiful designs or demonstrations are created by an accumulation of moments and interactions. This makes me think about how we are actively working, re-working and shifting relationships within youth spaces, and that’s really what this work is about. Stay tuned for our next episode and see you next time!

Details

This episode is the third in a three-part series featuring conversations between Rangoato Hlasane and Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández.

Rangoato Hlasane from the Keleketla! Library and Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández discuss how youth collectivities create beauty, and specifically, within Ra’s program, the Keleketla! Library in Johannesburg, South Africa. Keleketla is a library and media arts project co-founded by Ra that was formerly based at Johannesburg’s historic Drill Hall (2008-2015) and is now based at King Kong, also in Johannesburg. King Kong is a multidisciplinary arts space and concert venue. The Drill Hall is the site where Nelson Mandela and 156 prominent freedom fighters were tried for treason in 1956.

In this episode, they discuss what it means to make beautiful things within youth collectives and within contexts of material precarity, how youth collectives create and shift narratives, and how ethical commitments to anti-racism are challenged while facilitating collectives.

Rangoato Hlasane is a cultural worker, selector, educator and co-founder of Keleketla! Library in Johannesburg. He holds a Master’s degree in Visual Art from the University of Johannesburg and teaches at the University of the Witwatersrand, where he is a PhD candidate in African Literature. He 'selects' music to expand his research into the social, political, spiritual and economic significance of African oralities, sonic and musicking practices.

This episode was hosted and directed by Naima Raza, produced by Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández and Sarah Switzer, and supported by Youth Research Lab Research Assistants, Andrea Vela Alarcon and Madeleine Ross.

References and Further Reading

Hlasane, Rangoato. “Culture as Development of Voice and Selfarticulation: Keleketla! after-School Programme.” Focus 68, no. 1 (2013): 16–24. https://admin.hsf.org.za/publications/focus/focus-68/%283%29%20R.%20Hlasane.pdf. 

Smith, Linda Tuhiwai. Decolonizing Methodologies - Research and Indigenous Peoples. 2nd ed. Zed Scholar, 2012. 

Teen Talk: Fun but Not Funny (on Migration & Xenophobia in South Africa). YouTube. Keleketla! Library, 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DasU6nq7ds. 

Episode 4: On Building Youth Collectivities, A Conversation Between Rangoato Hlasane and Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández

• Read Transcript

  Citation:

  Raza, Naima. ““It wasn’t about being an artist, it was about getting together”: On Building Youth Collectivities, A Conversation between Rangoato Hlasane and Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández (Part Two).” Produced by Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández and Sarah Switzer at The Youth Research Lab. The WhyPAR Podcast. March 2, 2021. Podcast, MP3 audio, https://youthresearchlab.org/whypar

  Note on attribution:

  When citing the ideas and/or when quoting material from this podcast, please attribute the ideas to the speaker(s) and, whenever possible, note the timestamp or the line where the words quoted can be found. We recommend that you draw on the style conventions typically used for “secondary sources,” such as “quoted in” (Chicago Style) or “as cited in” (APA), and that you cite the source as listed above.

  Host: Welcome to The WhyPAR podcast, a project of the Youth Research Lab at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.

  Music

  Host: In the WhyPAR podcast, youth participatory action research practitioners discuss the ethical dimensions of conducting YPAR.  In our podcast, we explore issues of co-leading YPAR projects, building relationships, power dynamics, and sharing our work together. The Youth Research Lab is located in Toronto on the traditional territories of the Huron-Wendat, the Seneca, and most recently, the Mississaugas of the Credit River.  

  Ra: When I interviewed her about whether the program at Keleketla! should extend itself? She said, “No, it shouldn't because if it does, then it's going to be like a school. And what's special about this is that it’s not a school,” right?

  Host: Welcome everyone! My name is Naima, and I’m the host of the whyPAR podcast. I am currently a graduate assistant here at the Youth Research Lab. I’m also a YPAR practitioner with experience working in schools.

  Today’s episode is the second in a three-part conversation between Rangoato Hlasane, or Ra, and Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández. Ra is a YPAR practitioner, co-founder of Keleketla! Library and a lecturer at the University of the Witwatersrand, in Johannesburg, South Africa. Rubén is a YPAR practitioner, the Director of the Youth Research Lab, and a professor at the University of Toronto. 

  Together, they’re going to be discussing the process and nuances of building youth collectivities, and specifically, within Ra’s program, the Keleketla! Library in Johannesburg. As I mentioned in the last episode, Keleketla was based out of Johannesburg’s historic Drill Hall between 2008-2015, and was actually the site where Nelson Mandela and 156 prominent freedom fighters were tried for treason in 1956. Keleketla! is now based at King Kong, a multidisciplinary arts space and concert venue which is also in Johannesburg. 

  In this episode, Ra and Rubén will explore: How do young people understand learning that happens in collectivities outside of school contexts? What is the significance of ephemeral moments and interactions shared between individuals in maintaining youth collectives? What is the role of demonstrations and performance in maintaining youth art collectives? 

  This conversation was recorded, out again, outdoors in Johannesburg. The birds chirping in the background make me so happy because it’s a gloomy, cloudy winter day here in Toronto. 

  And with that, let’s jump in!

  Rubén: One thing I remember, being in Keleketla! the first time, five years ago, was that in a sense, this space felt to me full of life because it was full of artifacts that, so, so with the books in the, in the shelves, and then there were the various publications from other organizations that circulate through, through it, through a library. 

  Ra: Yes.

  Rubén: And then there were all the various artifacts you also created. And of course, some of those artifacts, especially the ones that are printed are very evident, but I'm assuming that they were also a lot of stuff that was made that was not apparent because it was ephemeral, perhaps, because it was performative. And I wonder, can you describe those things for me, because I don't have a sense of them. I have a, I have a clear sense of the things that are, that are objects, like clear object materials, right? The printed, the notebooks, the various sort of printed things, but I don't have a sense of what the other things looked like and the work that came out of that space.

  Ra: Yeah. There's a lot there. I don't know where to begin because… yeah. Uhm… the intergenerational dialogue for me come up as the most critical, and they come, they come in so many kinds of ways because… so for example, I remember Malose and I driving this car actually, driving about 40 minutes out of the city. Very far away, because, a young boy who was a student from his school, Freedom College, that became one of our really key partners in this education program and this school was two blocks away, three from the Drill Hall, and was having a hard time with the mother because, yeah, the mother just didn't understand why he's doing extra things outside of school. And, and because we always had these programs that were like 10 to 12 weeks leading towards a public moment to share, you know, the, the learner was getting concerned about letting down his group, he was playing the keyboard… and he came and was like “really, you need to come home and speak to my mother.” Right. And yeah, I mean, that's a very complex space of negotiation of all kinds of things, different complications, comprehension of what education is, of geographies of space, of young collectivities or collectives of young people, which are quite ephemeral by themselves. Like everything is always like, you know, it's going to end in any minute. But also like really commitment to the collective for us, stood out as this extended education or, you know, extended awareness about the place of, of centers such as ours. In their, in their, you know, in their contribution to, to learning, because one of the things also - its in the book that I gave you, 58 Years to the Treason Trial, there was this interview, with one of the members of the dance collective, who, when I interviewed her about whether the program at Keleketla! should extend itself? She said, “No, it shouldn't because if it does, then it's going to be like a school. And what's special about this is that it’s not a school,” right? 

  Then there were what we termed “Corridor Moments”, in this, there is this book Creating Spaces, the one, edited and put together by Nicola al-Samarai, we did, its written with arts, and we did actually quote this young person, Emma Ramashala again, about what is most valuable about the program, right? And, and for her, it wasn't about being an artist. It was about getting together, right? It was about also about the fact that this is a space to reflect with other people in the inner city, her peers. So, so these Corridor Moments for us have always been quite critical because the young people have always really centered and really emphasized the fact that they are not doing it because they want to be artists, there was that recognition. So it was not an invocation for our program in that sense. 

  And because usually when we have this 12 week programs that go towards a public sharing, that last week becomes quite complex in that people stay late, facilitators stay late, we all stay late, and the learners stay late. And there's no coercion. There's no forcing. Everybody wanted to stay late because now there's a commitment to an idea, commitment to a project, a message, or a showcase of a skill - right - that has been achieved over quite a committed time. So then you have parents coming to, to be able to collect their children. And they stay there and see the results. Right? For me, those are quite significant because then that becomes an extended awareness. I mean, I'm being cautious of saying education, but at the same time, it’s like - to make people aware of the, of the place of the art, right?, even if they don't do anything, they do that. They make parents actually come and wait for their children who are committed to something that they have to complete. And this is not as school thing, right? As the other participants said,  we don't want it to become a school, right? You want it to remain what it is. So, so that, that, that participation of parents, of sisters, of brothers, of people’s children, learners, youth, who are part of the program for us, it's the most effective way of creating awareness of the space of culture, of what people do in a community, in a community where the Johannesburg Art Gallery is also there, but not able to do that.

  You know, in other words, the parents come into the rehearsal, in order to collect their children at the end of this, because this thing is going over time because it's necessary. Their children think it’s necessary. It's a place of experiencing art, not on the day of the showcase, but in the day of the rehearsal, but also performing other roles that are familial, that are also neighborly that are part of the, the life, of the whole thing. So, you know, to an extent it is this insertion into a space, this insistence that we are going to insert ourselves into the social archive, of this space, something else, despite all of this, despite the city defining the space as complex, despite the neglect, despite all of that, we’re going to actually forcefully insert into the archive of this place, something else. 

  So the Drill Hall right now really is really...  is it's … I don't want to see the pictures, but it isn't. We have inserted an archive of something else. And that's why we've always said that the, we that's why the 58 Years to the Treason Trial book, we made sure that in terms of design aesthetic feel, it is beautiful and everything that we’ve always made is beautiful. Is this again, to like really insist on beauty in a space like that, to insist on the beautiful, in terms of the artifacts, knowing very well, that we can't even, that beauty can’t capture these ephemeral moments, these Corridor Moments that we termed that are very difficult to capture in many ways.

  Rubén: And perhaps not, not, not necessarily to capture, right? 

  Ra: Right. Yeah…

  Rubén: Because, I mean, there are, there are these spaces that - I was thinking about the activation of the, of the concept of art, you know, if you move from this shift about not what “the arts” do, but what the arts “do,” - that we activate the concept for a desired effect, as opposed to allowing the concept to define the effects that we desire, because perhaps there is a structure of relationality that we wish to activate, like - you know - the parent coming, staying late, and what happens in that moment that perhaps is difficult to activate through other means, but where “art” becomes a, becomes a match to wish the lights come, to fire the light, again, not in the name of art. It's really irrelevant. But in order to create - because really in a sense, you know, when I hear you describe what, what, resonates for me is this relationality that is being activated and which, you know, it's interesting because, because in our project, because we work so much - our project is defined by the fact that we work within school context and, and schools, are places that particularly for the children that you work with, the young people that we work with, schools are contexts where parents are not invited.

  Ra: And only for the school governing body can do that?

  Rubén: Right. Right. Right. Only, only through the means that the school says you may participate this way, you know? So it's interesting to hear that, to hear how, how the parents are drawn in through these kinds of preoccupations or these activations. Yeah. And what becomes possible in that setting and to think about the contrast. Right? Or, or even to think, I mean, I think it's the performance, that this event, this, this is what I want to get back to actually, I want to get back to these two day event because in a way the, this performative event, this closure, is a, is a borrowed thing. Right? I mean, if, if we think about, about the concept of the artist, which imposes the idea that the ultimate goal is to produce an artifact that is to be shared, right? That is sort of part of that phenomenon that we call the arts. What comes at the end is something that must be displayed. In a lot of ways, the same as the Academy with knowledge, we're supposed to produce something that has to be created, it has to be, that has to be disseminated, has to be proven in some way. And you have to demonstrate that there's something that comes out of all this work.

  You know, part of what I think we're wondering is, and we're so preoccupied with is, how do we keep a balance between highlighting the hallway, the hallway conversation that is not shareable and, and underscoring the importance of them, those moments, vis-a-vis these other moments, that in a sense are less important for the pedagogical project, and yet extremely important for sustaining the structure of whatever it is that we are doing. You can call it a school or you can do it, or not. And yet this moment of, in fact, dissemination this moment of sharing this moment of performance or performing an end… becomes so important for the funders, for the parents,

  Ra: For the kids - getting to convince the parents - “I am part of this thing,” for the kids obviously and for the parents as well. Right?

  Rubén: … and for the participants as well! 

  Ra: I mean, they, they give you their whole time… 

  Rubén: Of course. And there is an affective dimension to being able to say, look what I did. Right. Look what I accomplished. Right. And of course that has an importance, so, you know, so managing that, that balance between, between what we, as facilitators believe is important, which is ephemeral and passing and cannot be shared and, and what the structure requires of us to make, to make ourselves legible. 

  Ra: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, that, that features. Okay. So the work with the, with the youth, at the Drill Hall, of course, it ended since 2015. And since then I've entered the Academy. I mean, I entered the Academy in 2013, which is a completely different thing. So, the kind of anecdotes I shared about this participant, who said that, “we don't Keleketla to be a school”. You know, I'm not doing it to be an artist. I actually want to be a doctor, and she is right now, a doctor. So, it's different to an art school…

  Rubén: So now you are at an art school for one of the artists… laughter

  Ra: But also don't become artists! Some start coffee shops, some start work at call centres, there are a few of them that eventually become artists. And yet when I'm there, I'm engaging them with something that is quite defined. And I face all kinds of attitudes, personalities, all kinds of levels of engagement. And I can see who is going to, who's not, and who wants to, who's not, I can see who just had the privilege to be in that class. And it's a very difficult balance to do, because I want to reach those who really are committed to a particular kind of ideology and agenda and, and stuff. And I, and also there is, although I try as much as I can, a desire to reproduce a particular kind of ideology, or a way of being, post-art school. Right. And for me, it's collectivities. I want to instigate collectives, like that’s my dream, every time.

  So it's a difficult balance because now one of the things that I had tried as much is to get students to move away from doing work for, for marks, for grading, for crits, for example, it's like, how can you do that? Then you will still, like, you will get, you will, you will get this degree, but can you please move away from these marks? Don't come to my class for grading. Like, how can I achieve such an environment? It was a difficult one at that stage. It’s difficult because it has to do with financial aid, it has to do with resources, it has to do with people's time. Like really getting people to own the process. Right? So that I really become as a facilitator with a capital F, and that's difficult because they see me as something else. Right. It's a figure of authority. Somebody who's going to give them warnings, who's going to, and I really want to eliminate that as much as I can.

  So it's, it's quite, it's quite a difficult one. So, so in a sense, even being in the University now, you know, every time a student tells me that they're speaking to their parents about the cost, or during graduation, their parents are saying, okay, yeah, we had that. I feel like, okay, all right. Something is happening, slowly but surely because I think, the, the Keleketla experience, as well as the earlier experience before Keleketla, you know, when we were still students, the student accommodation, even in high school, it is more of an extension of the assets in the community to be understood as, as not infinite for what they are. So the RISO, for example, is something that, when I realized that actually it exists in schools, simply for photocopying all these things, exists! And in 2013, when Keleketla wanted to do a zine workshop, and we bought two RISOs, that were second hand both of them were broke, the day after. And we gave up. Two years later, I realized that Freedom College, our partner school, has a RISOs, you know, so, so this idea of extending all this community halls, churches, you know, all these things that are already in the community, that they are not just supposed to be infinite for their only role, how to extend them into…  because that's, that's really central to South African political life. Churches were places of solace, for political activists, the place where they would go, and be accepted and then organize in the church. The halls turns into weddings into, into churches, into youth clubs. They, they have multiple goals. They're not just one thing at one time just for that alone. So that is the kind of thing that I think is quite critical in enabling an understanding and really illuminating, that, which is already understood  in the way that its being done.

  Music

  Host: Thank you so much for joining us on this episode of The whyPAR podcast. My big takeaways from Ra and Rubén’s conversation include hearing about the ways we can build spaces outside of school and avoid reproducing the structures of schooling, the ways that young people value collectivity, and the importance of ephemeral interactions and moments that cannot be documented in maintaining collectivity. Stay tuned for our next episode and see you next time! 

Details

This episode is the second in a three-part series featuring conversations between Rangoato Hlasane and  Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández.

Rangoato Hlasane from the Keleketla! Library and Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández discuss the process and importance of building youth collectivities, and specifically, within Ra’s program, the Keleketla! Library in Johannesburg, South Africa. Keleketla is a library and media arts project co-founded by Ra that was formerly based at Johannesburg’s historic Drill Hall (2008-2015) and is now based at King Kong, also in Johannesburg. King Kong is a multidisciplinary arts space and concert venue. The Drill Hall is the site where Nelson Mandela and 156 prominent freedom fighters were tried for treason in 1956.

In this episode, they discuss children and youth’s understandings of and commitment to the program and their learning, the importance of ephemeral moments between children and parents in building understanding about the program, and importance of the role of demonstrations and performance in maintaining the structure of a participatory program such as Keleketla! Library.

Rangoato Hlasane is a cultural worker, selector, educator and co-founder of Keleketla! Library in Johannesburg. He holds a Master’s degree in Visual Art from the University of Johannesburg and teaches at the University of the Witwatersrand, where he is a PhD candidate in African Literature. He 'selects' music to expand his research into the social, political, spiritual and economic significance of African oralities, sonic and musicking practices.

This episode was hosted and directed by Naima Raza, produced by Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández and Sarah Switzer, and supported by Youth Research Lab Research Assistants, Andrea Vela Alarcon and Madeleine Ross.

References and Further Reading

Hlasane, Rangoato, Fouad Asfour, Malose Malahlela, and Judith Reker. Creating Spaces: Non-Formal Art/s Education and Vocational Training for Artists in Africa between Cultural Policies and Cultural Funding. Edited by Nicola Lauré Al-Samarai, Katharina von Ruckteschell-Katte, and Henrike Grohs. Goethe-Institut South Africa, 2014. 

Moiloa, Molemo, ed. 58 Years to the Treason Trial: Inter-Generational Dialogue as a Method for Learning. 1st ed. Keleketla! Library, 2014. 

Episode 3: On The Geographies of YPAR, A Conversation Between Rangoato Hlasane and Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández

• Read Transcript

  Citation:

  Raza, Naima. “A space that belongs to the city, but is being neglected by the city”: On the Geographies of YPAR, A Conversation between Rangoato Hlasane and Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández (Part One).” Produced by Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández and Sarah Switzer at The Youth Research Lab. The WhyPAR Podcast. March 2, 2021. Podcast, MP3 audio, https://youthresearchlab.org/whypar

  Note on Attribution:

  When citing the ideas and/or when quoting material from this podcast, please attribute the ideas to the speaker(s) and, whenever possible, note the timestamp or the line where the words quoted can be found. We recommend that you draw on the style conventions typically used for “secondary sources,” such as “quoted in” (Chicago Style) or “as cited in” (APA), and that you cite the source as listed above.

  Host: Welcome to The WhyPAR podcast, a project of the Youth Research Lab at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. 

  Music

  Host: In the WhyPAR podcast, youth participatory action research practitioners discuss the ethical dimensions of conducting YPAR.  In our podcast, we explore issues of co-leading YPAR projects, building relationships, power dynamics, and sharing our work together. The Youth Research Lab is located in Toronto on the traditional territories of the Huron-Wendat, the Seneca, and most recently, the Mississaugas of the Credit River.  

  Ra: It is therefore, was always wanting to be levered their response… So keleketa as a call and response… the response being keleketla, I'm here to listen to you, active participation… there’s a drawing from responding to the political conditions, seeking to create that which is not there for you…

  Host: Welcome everyone! My name is Naima, and I’m the host of the whyPAR podcast. I am currently a graduate assistant here at the Youth Research Lab. I’m also a YPAR practitioner with a background working in schools.

  And we’re back this month with another exciting conversation. Last month you heard from Sarah and Rubén. Today’s episode is the first in a three-part conversation between Rangoato Hlasane, (or Ra) and Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández. Ra is a YPAR practitioner, co-founder of Keleketla! Library and a lecturer at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa. Rubén is a YPAR practitioner, the Director of the Youth Research Lab, and a professor at the University of Toronto.

  They’re going to be discussing how YPAR plays out in marginalized geographies, and specifically, in the context of the Joubert Park neighbourhood in Johannesburg. In this episode, they will discuss Keleketla!, a library and media arts project co-founded by Ra. Keleketla! was based at Johannesburg’s historic Drill Hall in the Joubert Park neighbourhood between 2008-2015, and it was actually the site where Nelson Mandela and 156 prominent freedom fighters were tried for treason in 1956. So, the operating space of Keleketla! holds a heavy significance. Keleketla! is now based at King Kong, a multidisciplinary arts space and concert venue which is also in Johannesburg. 

  Together, both Ra and Rubén will explore: How are cultural spaces born of creative resistance by populations neglected by the city? What are the ways that young people come together and actively create their own spaces and institutions in order to engage in the arts? What is the significance of spaces like the historic Drill Hill as being the site that allows young people to share space, imagine and create the programming they hope for? 

  This conversation was recorded outdoors in Johannesburg. I’m sure you can hear the children playing and the birds chirping in the background of the conversation. Hearing the sounds of the outdoors throughout the entire conversation brought me so much joy. And with that, let’s jump in!

  Rubén: Thank you for doing this, having this conversation with me and allowing me to record it. It's really, it's really an honor. And just such a pleasure to keep having these conversations with you. I know I hope that whatever it is that transpires between us, it's somehow useful to somebody else. And if not, then it would just be a gift to each other is a gift to each other. 

  Ra: It’s a gift to each other. Yeah, I'm really, it's an equal honor and a pleasure. And indeed the privilege because, it's borrowed time, right? Like, we, we tried to make the best of the time that we have together… 

  Rubén: So, I think it would be great. If, can you describe kind of the beginnings of “Keleketla” and, the beginnings of “Keleketla” and the work that you do for people who are not familiar with it. And, I'm particularly curious about what were the commitments that moved you to this? What were the sort of both ethical political commitments that sort of moved you through this process of arriving at your practice?

  Ra: Yo, as they say , there are always many ways to enter in the story, and there are many pathways into it. But one of the first stories that I really always go back to is the meeting of myself and Malose Malahlela, who is basically the one person whom we have carried through this Keleketla project for many years. We met at the, at a cipher, a hip hop cipher. 

  The cipher is a space of a circle in which knowledge is transferring in a circle, one person after the other, was very important. But in that circle, there are many different personalities, biographies, characteristics, written styles. So, so you always feel each other up, you know, as to who am I feeling? Who is saying what, who is that I'm feeling? So you can feel each other on a stylistic level. You can feel each other on a thematic level, all kinds of things.

  So from that very first session where we connected, we became the core organizers, pulling people together into these sessions every Friday. Started in my room, into another person's room and Malose’s room. Towards the end of 2007, we were feeling like, okay, now we are living in student accommodation, but we want to keep this connection. This community, this connectivity. So that's when we spoke to people who were running the space in the Drill Hall doing arts and culture programs, within other programs that were happening within this space.

  And that's when the idea of starting a library started. And because then it was sort of set that in a library, formed by not bureaucrats, administrators, but by artists…  the library itself had to be something else. Had to reimagine itself, had to reimagine libraries, and what they can be. Right? I've always been interested in literature and reading and writing and not only writing lyrics, but also writing many other different kinds of things. So that also became important in terms of what kind of library should this become… 

  But at the time we really were not so conscious about what, you know, how we are thinking about what kind of library we should do. The only thing was that children became the most, the main recipients, the main beneficiaries, right? Who came because, because it's, as you can you imagine the dynamics in the compact nature and the density of it, there are very few spaces for children. And because it had this public square as a building, this Drill Hall space, children are always drawn to this square to play. So when the library emerged, some of the first people who came were children. Now, because children are coming and enjoying the books, and it was only one shelf - finished - and they were like, well, we actually wanna dance, we wanna, we want music, we want to paint. So the children gave us a mandate in a sense. 

  So when the children were asking all kinds of things and the Joubert Park project had some remaining funds, then we could, because of these large space contacts, collectives [working here] at the time in theater and music and visual art, and stuff, and we were like, the children are asking for some things, and between us we don't have enough skills to give them what they want, ah but we have this huge space. So, if you want to do workshops, performances, concerts, let's think of a bartering system. Children, what they want in exchange for you using the space, for [inaudible].

  And essentially that's how the after school program developed, right. It was a mandate. There was like, books are not enough, books are not the only thing we need. And what was beautiful though, was the naming, was that the naming, the term Keleketla is a response to a storytellers, "once upon a time." Um, so the response being keleketla, I'm here to listen to you, active participation, uh, as I was, uh, sharing at the session at keleketla library is that it is, uh, it is therefore was always wanting to be [levered] their response then, and I always go back to, to the children, seeking more than the books, seeking more than what you started with, and brought into the space and saying 'we actually have other things in mind.'

  And then that leading to further call and responses. So keleketa as a call and response, was really manifested and concretized at the very beginning, in terms of how the after school program, emerged, and developed and, and really became a key feature of the library. So, so in a sense, there’s a drawing from responding to the social conditions, the political conditions, seeking to create that which is not there for you… 

  At the same time the student accommodation was two blocks away from the Johannesburg Art gallery. Uh, and very few people knew it, right? Like knew of it. I did because I was studying fine art. And now, uh, our lecturers used to take us there, but in the student accommodation nobody knew, I mean, so it was also about there are structures, there are institutions of culture, but it's a distant culture. Nobody is, Nobody knows. Or even if they know they don't want to go.

  Organizing cifers, regular cifers was way of getting together to rap together, because that's what we do. So starting a collective that way, and then this collective ahead of, towards graduation, realizing that what we created is important, let's take it further than rapping into forming a space, a Library. A formal space of gathering was important because we were forming a space informed by what we do.

  So we were informed by what we do, and then, and out of which then creating a space that, that expands from that, but by inviting others, but also listening to what people are seeking, particularly the young people, then developed into this program of intergenerational conversations, right? but that also on the political level was informed by the fact that we knew that there's not enough spaces for all these collectives, including ourselves, before we gained access to do things. So we knew that is the resonance that people are seeking space and we have it. So, so on that political level, it was also known that the city of Joburg does not have enough spaces. And of course the paradox being that Johannesburg Art Gallery is right there and we were not using it. And in terms of using a space that is being, that belongs to the city, but being neglected, by the city. Right?

  Rubén: Yeah. I mean, that was one of the things that really stood out to me being there. And I remember it quite distinctly, right. That here are these spaces that the city produces, for the purpose of engaging an audience, and here is an audience, ready to engage, that's not interested in these spaces. And then here is a space that the city forgets or, and then that's where the engagement occurs. So that this is a powerful, you know, that's about agencies. There's so much about that that has to do with people's relationship to space.

  Ra: Yes. The temporal, the spatial.

  Rubén: And what spaces are welcoming, and what spaces are not… 

  A question that I wanted to ask you about, about the process of welcoming the children, creating the space, being there, Because in a sense, you know, drill hall is both at the moment, Drill Hall is both an empty space. Uh, with, with a structure, right? That kind of physical structure. I, I, I remember the brick columns, the floor, the wood right, across from the square. And so it isn't the church, it isn't a school. It isn't any of these other institutions that, that in this case, children, but even adults navigate. And yet at the same time, it's a place with such a monumental and heavy history, right? which the children may or may not have been aware of. Perhaps they could see the fences and recognize that this is not just any kind of square, right.

  Because when you, at least my experience of Drill Hall, when you're in that space, that cement floor and the fences is that you recognize it as a public space, but you recognize it that it isn't a park. Right? It isn't, it's something else. Right? And, and, and then, you know, the history of Drill Hall. So I'm really curious about how, how that facilitation occurred or what were the sort of signals or, or, or events, or, you know, intuitions or thoughts or feelings that, that allowed a space that on the one hand is empty and has no content. And on the other, has this huge historical content and this particular…. yeah, again, it's not a church, it's not a school, isn't not a courthouse. It's not a library, isn't not a museum and you're -  there you are. Right. And then there you are, and there are  the children. And then suddenly things start happening. Bring me back to that. Like, what's that like?

  Ra: I mean, look, one thing is, is that when the city invited what they called anchor tenants, they did, what I think is a good job, right? So there was an institution, that was based on skills transfer called the Joubert Charitable Affair that is involved in taking care of the young people, for skills transferal. And then they selected another group, another organization that is looking at homeless people and giving them a place to stay and also involved skills transferral in kind.

  Rubén: So they were, they were sheltering homeless people in this?

  Ra: Yes. And then invited the Joubert Park project to get that project with other cultures. And they were tasked and sort of bringing their heritage, their culture and heritage to, to sort of activate the space for programming that revisits its history. So those structures were in place and then there's this square, which is just open for people to come in. And then all these three organizations could host things there. So as a shared space, so basically already people that come into the square to just chill and play.

  Rubén: Because of these organizations being there?

  Ra: Yes. And also the square being open to everybody, in a sense.

  So when we get, but, but the Joubert Park project was working on a project, and most of the time, really contemporary language, which, which, which I think was also kind of alienating, and would, you know, would have an effect where then other people stay on the margins and watch. In a sense. So what we proposed was to be fully integrated in the space to run on as is instead of [inaudible] as cutting out of a student community where we do more on a weekly basis, which is in a sense, a project to project basis. But we were part of that community, bringing that the root of being part of a community, but having moments of showcase.

  So, so when, and, and, and, and it is here that I think it is the children's mandate that a shelf of books, it's not enough. We want more that really pop because on the one hand, we, we did not have all the skills they wanted. So it made us reach out. But this also had an effect in terms of making us network too, by bringing other collectives, we are knowing more people. Remember we are coming out of student accommodation. So we are also still trying to be in connection with the broader world. Outside of sort of that isolated world oif just students accommodation. So that, that, that dabbling created an effect where the immediate neighborhood knows now that okay, if you got tired or just run on the square and playing soccer, there is dance. There is, there is drama. There is visual art, it's complicated, but also actually is a library where you can get books and you can not get in the library.

  And the schools in the inner city, most of them don't have libraries, especially in those, in that neighborhood where most of the schools actually, are private, but not private in the sense that they are expensive. They're actually sometimes cheaper than government schools, such as schools like [school name] boys or [school name] boys and girls. So they are private in the sense that they're not governing schools, but they actually for working class families. And most of them operate in business that needs to be offices that have been abandoned in this shift. When these exodus to the Northern suburbs, so many buildings were empty. So they became schools, cheap schools. So many of them actually don't have libraries. So in fact, what we did when we first started in 2008, 2009, and starting this after school program, after the kids asked, and then we were reaching out to collectives who, who needed space and had the skills, we were going to schools to ask teachers that there's a program and, you know, the learners can come and participate.

  And of course, no, teachers were too busy, so they didn't want to be engaging for the organizer and that didn't work. Right. And we popped it and continued to do [inaudible] with those who were interested. Then what happened is that every now and then you start hearing from different schools, writing letters, “Dear Keleketla, we hear about the work you're doing, which is really great.” First they wrote to us about books. And just to just ask me about books, the point that they do not have resources and libraries. So all the schools that addressing us letters, because the learners who now come, go speak in the schools about this space.

  And, I mean, some of them were not so committed, but it was this Freedom College that really was really similar in many ways. And, and it is that actually, that really created this, this, this confluence of, of different understanding of the geography, which with Joubert Park in the neighborhood, I'll send you a video. I don't know, since for the reflections one. And this one is quite significant because there was a time when, when we approached Freedom College to work with them on a choir project. So when we were doing the history of the Drill Hall, we realized that during the Treason Trial of 1956, because the trial was really dragging the, the trial formed themselves into the choir. 

  Rubén: Hmm. Interesting. 

  Ra: Because they were bored, you know, this trial was ridiculous. So they formed the choir and then in this part of us, and then Freedom College invites, well, we approach Freedom College to say, this is a very interesting factor. And we know you have a school choir. 

  And then the teacher who was the choir conductor was very excited to collaborate with us. But then after agreeing, left the school. During that time, then somebody who was coming to the Drill Hall, for a music studio that was operating, had heard these children singing and came upstairs… and asked if they could be involved and at the time we were like, okay, we'll see, because we still had this school choir conductor. And then the conductor of the school choir left the school, and we were left with no conductor. And that person actually can conduct. And then they was, she was now a new conductor with a band of young practitioners who you're collaborating with, and it was a phenomenal project.

  So, I think it is this ability to work within, and the finding of at the time there was a project called Hundred Meter Radius, which was, which came out of the funds of the previous organization, that, that when we applied to occupy the space, we are about to leave. So the funds came few years later after they've given up or given over the space to us. And there was these funds that we could use. 

  So, the project was called Hundred Metre Radius, which is about really in the neighborhood. And yet there was this ability for people beyond the neighborhood, as students facilitated many projects, people from other geographies helped facilitate projects. So the ability to work within, enmeshed within the immediate neighborhood, and also have people from elsewhere coming to the space to collaborate was quite critical. But I, it was very, very important in, in creating this environment that is quite open, because at the end of the day, people don't want to be parochial. People want to be with others. They want to see the world from the way they are.

  Music 

  Host: Thank you so much for joining us on this episode of The WhyPAR Podcast. My big takeaways from Ra and Rubén’s conversation include hearing about how organically small informal gathering spaces like can lead to the creation of such important community spaces like Keleketla. I learned about how we can re-imagine what libraries and artistic spaces can look like, and how sites like Keleketla can be grounded within community and a neighbourhood and also bring people across a city together.  Stay tuned for our next episode and see you next time! 

Details

This episode is the first in a three-part series featuring conversations between Rangoato Hlasane and Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández.

Rangoato Hlasane (Ra) from the Keleketla! Library and Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández discuss how YPAR plays out in marginalized geographies, and specifically, in Ra’s context of the Joubert Park neighbourhood in Johannesburg, South Africa. In this episode, they will discuss Keleketla!, a library and media arts project co-founded by Ra that was formerly based at Johannesburg’s historic Drill Hall (2008-2015) and is now based at King Kong, also in Johannesburg. King Kong is a multidisciplinary arts space and concert venue. The Drill Hall is the site where Nelson Mandela and 156 prominent freedom fighters were tried for treason in 1956.

Ra and Rubén discuss the role of place and identity in the emergence of resistant creative spaces, the ways that young people come together and create their own spaces to engage in the arts, and the significance of spaces like the historic Drill Hill as being the site where young people imagine and create programming for themselves.

Rangoato Hlasane is a cultural worker, selector, educator and co-founder of Keleketla! Library in Johannesburg. He holds a Master’s degree in Visual Art from the University of Johannesburg and teaches at the University of the Witwatersrand, where he is a PhD candidate in African Literature. He 'selects' music to expand his research into the social, political, spiritual and economic significance of African oralities, sonic and musicking practices.

This episode was hosted and directed by Naima Raza, produced by Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández and Sarah Switzer, and supported by Youth Research Lab Research Assistants, Andrea Vela Alarcon and Madeleine Ross.

References and Further Reading

“Keleketla Library - Keleketla Media Arts Project.” Keleketla Library, 2013. https://keleketla.org/about/. 

What Happened at the Treason Trial? Google Arts & Culture, 2021. https://artsandculture.google.com/exhibit/what-happened-at-the-treason-trial-africa-media-online/PwJS8md1REM3Iw?hl=en. 

Episode 2: On Ethical Commitments and the Politics of Dissemination, A Conversation Between Sarah Switzer and Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández (Part Two)

• Read Transcript

  Citation:

  Raza, Naima. “”We don’t talk about the work without the youth researchers”: On Ethical Commitments and the Politics of Dissemination (Part Two).” Produced by Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández and Sarah Switzer at The Youth Research Lab. The WhyPAR Podcast. January 11, 2021. Podcast, MP3 audio, https://youthresearchlab.org/whypar

  Note on Attribution: 

  When citing the ideas and/or when quoting material from this podcast, please attribute the ideas to the speaker(s) and, whenever possible, note the timestamp or the line where the words quoted can be found. We recommend that you draw on the style conventions typically used for “secondary sources,” such as “quoted in” (Chicago Style) or “as cited in” (APA), and that you cite the source as listed above.

  Host: Welcome to The WhyPAR podcast, a project of the Youth Research Lab at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. 

  Music

  Host: In the WhyPAR podcast, youth participatory action research practitioners discuss the ethical dimensions of conducting YPAR.  In our podcast, we explore issues of co-leading YPAR projects, building relationships, power dynamics, and sharing our work together. The Youth Research Lab is located in Toronto on the traditional territories of the Huron-Wendat, the Seneca, and most recently, the Mississaugas of the Credit River.  

  Rubén: We have a kind of politic that we don’t talk about the work without the youth researchers. Every time that I think of an example of something that the young people have done and I want to offer it as an example, I have this moment where I have to check myself. Am I talking about them without them?

  Host: Welcome everyone! My name is Naima, and I’m the host of the WhyPAR podcast. I am currently a graduate assistant at the Youth Research Lab. I’m also a YPAR practitioner with a background working in schools.

  As you may know, today’s episode is the second in a two-part conversation between Dr. Sarah Switzer and Dr. Rubén Gaztambide-Fernandez. Sarah is a YPAR practitioner and post-doctoral fellow at the University of Toronto and Rubén is a YPAR practitioner, a professor at the University of Toronto and the Director of the Youth Research Lab . They’re going to be continuing their conversation on ethical commitments and the politics of knowledge dissemination in YPAR. They’re going to be discussing, How do power dynamics play out in YPAR and while disseminating knowledge? How do we honour our ethical commitments while disseminating youth knowledge? What are the opportunities, challenges, and tensions in disseminating knowledge within academic spaces? 

  I hope you got a chance to listen to our first episode, so if you haven’t, I would very much encourage you to check it out before you jump into this one. 

  And like Part One of this conversation, Part Two of this conversation was also recorded at the Youth Research Lab on U of T’s campus… as I mentioned in our previous episode, the Youth Research Lab is a super fun and creative space, which made recording this so great. 

  And with that, let’s jump in!

  Rubén: I was thinking, though, that know, one of the aspects that we want to make sure that we talk about is this issue of dissemination. And I think maybe we can enter that through this question of structures and timing and expectations. I'm not sure, you know, if that's valid. It's not as if that's a helpful entry point for you. I mean, for me, I'm thinking that part of. Part of the challenges are on disseminating the work and when I think about disseminating, I think specifically around this question of how to share the work that young people do, you know, projects with the public. We have sort of an expectation that that the dissemination aspect of our work is part of the grade. And this is one of the challenges of doing participatory research within school, is that there is there is an evaluative aspect to it, that there is a kind of expectation that that there is some kind of product at the end that can be evaluated and that and that is a product that, you know, according to the parameters of schools, each individual student is supposed to be evaluated individually.

  But participatory research doesn't work that way. We work in teams and we work in collaboration. And that's been challenging even from the point of figuring out what exactly these products look like or are. Never mind how to disseminate them.  What did they look like? Who was involved in creating them? What? Why is that a satisfactory outcome or product that that we can say yet that student got an eighty nine, that student got a ninety four, that student got an eighty six. You know, so for us that question of dissemination in a sense… the actual question of how the work gets disseminated, it's answered a priori because we've already decided coming in that at the end of the project we're going to have a presentation… often that's up to debate. We usually tell the students you get to decide what it looks like, you even get to decide if this happens, you know, you could you could decide that these, quote unquote, final presentation is literally just us in a circle talking about our project. Or you could decide that you want to have a big public event, then invite a bunch of people to see it. It's completely up to you. But there has to be something because we have to enter a mark that we have to tell the board, the district, yep, they've fulfilled their requirements and here's the evidence that we're using to give this student an eighty three. So how do you think about that? What are the sort of what are some of the ways that they're sharing the results of the work or sharing the work that the people you work with produce? How does that sort of figure in the way you think about ethics? That was a terrible transition, but I'm sorry. 

  Sarah: I'm still thinking about this, that the tension around. Great. Wow, what a contradiction. And I'm just thinking about the power dynamics that I play as like the teacher that grades. Right. You know, already there are definitely in research power dynamics in terms of folks expectations that they need to be or perform in a particular way. For you as a researcher, even if those relationships are ongoing, you know, like I've had many experiences where some will say something to me on tape that I'm like. I know that that is very different from everything else you ever said to me. You know, I've known folks for a very long time. And I'm like, OK. Yeah. Yeah. And then off tape, you know, they'll say something entirely different, you know, or I'll even have like confessional moments where folks will call me up the next day. And be like, I really need you to know this, you know? And I'm like, oh, OK. Well, you know, it's almost like they're trying to, because they're quite savvy. Right. And being like, I'll tell you this on tape. And that's all about power. But anyway. In that's the complete side tangent. In terms of dissemination…  I mean, I'm certainly not limited by expectations around marking.

  I think dissemination is something that's negotiated in an ongoing way. And I will say that I can't generalize. The sharing of the work is often the pull for folks to be involved in the first place in the sense that they, they want to see research that makes a difference. They want… if we're working through the arts or other forms of cultural production, they want to celebrate in the work that they produced. They want to know that it wasn't for nothing. And so there's often a very keen interest in dissemination from the very beginning.  Now, I'm not saying the academic articles folks don't really care so much about those and why should they? But the conversations are definitely negotiated, ongoing. And I find especially with my work with young people and in part because it's because I've been working with the same group of folks for a very long time.

  And in this I'm thinking more specifically about the recent project I did, which is around kind of how stakeholders in different organizations considered or thought about engagement. So in this case, we're thinking about youth engagement. So I'm working with young leaders who are already very actively involved. And I, one of my challenges was that I didn't have an unlimited budget. I also didn't have an unlimited amount of time. I was doing it as connected to my doctoral work. So it did need to kind of wrap up. And even if I wasn't doing it, it was part of my doctoral work. I had the constraints of the funder I had. There's only so much you can do. And so balancing everyone's desires to be involved and with just the human resources capacity to kind of follow that involvement through. And so one of the ways that I have attended to that, which I think connects back to ethical commitments, has been really explicit with folks that this is their work and they can do with it what they want. And so that has opened up opportunities for folks to do stuff with the work that has nothing to do with me. And in fact, that is the best case scenario so that we can organize a series of events within our project, whether it's an exhibit, whether it's multiple. I do a lot of co… for lack of a better word co-lead or coauthored presentations where young folks and myself will go and we'll present at professional conferences, less academic conferences, because folks aren't really interested in that. So we'll present to physicians or service providers or policymakers and that work is always so important. It takes a lot of time, but it is so important. So we'll do a lot of those...  we will produce, you know, public documents that get circulated. And one of the benefits of those documents is that because they're tangible, folks can literally go and do stuff with them. That, again, is completely outside of the parameters of the project. And so it hasn't been uncommon for me to be chatting with folks and they're like, oh, I went and talked on a panel the other day about the project, and I’m like, did you? And I mean that at first. I was like, you know, I've got to let up control, you know, if we're really going to say this is a participatory collective project, then things are gonna come out that have nothing to do with me. And that is what we ought to strive for. You know, I've had other young people they created, we worked on this coauthored book chapter with a bunch of young folks around thinking about how to structure peer-led programs. And it was, the chapters called “What's Glitter Got To Do With It”. Yeah, I can't remember the full title, but I bring up Glitter because I found it a few years later…  a group of them are one of, one of them had been asked by this organizing body that organized this conference for community members. And they said there has been critique over time that there wasn't a youth focus. So they said, OK, we're going to pay a young person to do a thing, kind of perhaps tokenistic… Yeah, well, I won't say anything in a public interview. 

  But so this young person ended up navigating with the organizers that they needed a larger budget and they went and recruited a bunch of folks that had worked on this chapter and other projects together. And they created this installation of a chair covered in glitter from which they put in the conference as a kind of representation of a seat at the table and then asked folks to kind of lacquer. And then they had all these statements on the chair that were quotes from the book chapter we had created. Their quotes, not mine. And then asked folks to kind of contribute to the chair in terms of their own commitments, in terms of what they were going to be doing within their own spaces to make sure that young people actually had a voice at the table. And it was actually quite an intervention for them to put this chair in a space that has traditionally not been very youth-centered. And I had no idea that this had happened, like I found this out after the fact. You know, I was, I was delighted. 

  So I guess it kind of speaks to something that is that it's a, it's a balance in terms of how these things get negotiated. And a lot of the time, you know, it also comes down to resources too which I think is something that we don't often talk about publicly in participatory research. You know, it's like what happens when a budget runs out? The budget runs out. And then how do you continue this work when the work is often really pressing? We can say, yes, OK, we'll apply for another grant. But the reality is that that takes a very long time. And are folks willing to wait around, you know, these grant cycles can take sometimes one, two years to get the grants. And so it's definitely a challenge. 

  Rubén: You know, it's interesting to hear about the continuation of the relationships beyond the parameters of the project. Probably the closest that I can think of that and this is directly related to dissemination is the creation of INCITE, the journal INCITE, which evolved out of the work that Lila Angod, who was a postdoctoral fellow at the time and who took the lead with the YPAR project that we did at the private school nearby.  And it was really Lila and the young people that she was working with in that project that sort of first imagined INCITE and kind of made INCITE run. And so probably INCITE is the is the biggest sort of public dissemination project that has grown out of this… the most ongoing. Of course, the difference there is that this is not about their own work. So they've basically created a platform for other young people to share the work that they were doing in projects through this online “academic” in quotes. And I see academic in quotes not because I don't think it's academic, but because they very deliberately, you know, one of their goals is to very deliberately challenge the parameters of what it means to be academic. And particularly when engaging young people, the ways in which young people want to share their knowledge don't, rarely look the way that we adults, academics want to share our work. And it doesn't make it less academic. So probably that's the closest to that. I've sort of lost my train of thought, I thought a little bit thinking about this piece of dissemination.

  Sarah: It's interesting when you talk about INCITE, though, I think I think one of the pieces it's really integral to the work that we both do is coming out of this conversation. Is that kind of recognizing and allowing for like multiple different products for lack of a better term, you know, and not going in with any pre-decided expectation of it's going to look this particular way. And I think that that's really important for the process to be emergent so that if young people decide that they're like, I want to start a journal. OK, that is that is a possibility. I'm not pre figuring things from the start. Right. I think that that's been really, really key. I mean, it can be challenging from a funding perspective because for grants, you have to write in a plan, you know, funders are not so open to… We're just going to see what happens and what happens. 

  Rubén: Yeah, that's right. And so not something funders want to hear. 

  Sarah: Yeah. And so it's like, how do you then, as a researcher in terms of those ethical commitments, build a grant that is, you know, robust enough a grant so you'll get the funding, but also be open enough to know that you can throw the entire thing out the window? If you want to. And that's actually I think a skill that you need to kind of hone as a participatory researcher if you want to get funding. But it's also incredibly important for the work because you need folks to be able to then, you know, build these installations or run off and do these projects or, you know, build an academic journal… I didn’t know we are co authoring the glitter chapter. I went into that project not expecting that we are going to write a book chapter at all. I thought we were gonna do a video because we'd done videos before. We're gonna do a series of presentations. And I don't even know how it came up, to be totally honest. But I remember we were sitting around the room and we were talking about knowledge production, not so much in those words, but how knowledge gets produced specifically around young people. And I'd mentioned something around kind of, oh, you know, will folks get cited? Some of these people were also starting to learn how to write grants at this time, programing grants. And for background in public health, there's just huge move towards evidence based programming. Right. Which put a lot of demand on folks in community to justify what they already know using outside sources. So they were kind of like navigating that and being a what is this, this thing that we're you know, that, you know, we have to do it even for youth led programing, you have to do it. And so next thing you know, I'd pulled up Google Scholar and we had a screen. So we did it with the PowerPoint, but like we had it projected. And so let's just search for stuff. So they told me the terms and I put it in, and, and they're like, well, what you don't like, what, you know this guy? This jerk? He has how many citations, and this is what he’s writing, you know, stuff that was very focused on risk, very essentializing around categories, not accounting for issues of systemic racism or transphobia or homophobia or poverty or any of this. And they were pissed off and they said, well, how do we get on this list? They said, well, unfortunately, you know, all of the work that we do is so important in terms that participatory videos, the workshops, all of that, you know, that is very, very, very important. It probably will make more change than stuff on this less. But unfortunately, because of the powers that be and academic structures, they won't ever end up on Google Scholar. 

  And they said we want end up Google Scholar. So how do we do that? Well, we can… write a chapter. And so that's how we did it. But it wasn't it was never through it was never didactic prose. That's right. It was. It was ensuring that anything could kind of come up at any given moment.  And then negotiating all of that. And then again, back to the flexibility being like, oh, OK, so how are we gonna do this?

  Rubén: That’s such a great story Sarah. You know it actually reminds me of how important INCITE is. Yes. Because INCITE is such an important venue for just that. And for making sure, because the other thing that happens in academia, that another way in which academia sort of ends up having an undue influence on things is citation practices. And it's very difficult to cite a video that you saw at a community gathering. It's very difficult to cite a tweet or to cite an installation, you know, like the wonderful installations that you created. You could create it together, but, and so and so this becomes a political project of interfering, intervening, interfering, intervening in an academic project by perusing a space that then allows that work to be cited.  Yeah, know. I mean, in a similar way that we're hoping these blogs also become or these interviews, these conversations have also become a way to do that is it interferes in the practice in their academic practices that give certain kinds of work salience by making it available for that so that we can so that this can be cited. So that they can show up on Google Scholar when somebody is looking it up and it really sort of underscores that for me. But it also speaks to a tension, a big tension in this question of dissemination for us, which is that we have a kind of politic that we don't talk about the work without those without the young youth researchers or we don't talk about that particular research projects. But it's really difficult to talk about the work that we do with them without talking about the work they're doing. And so even right now, when we're having this conversation, you know, every time that I think of an example of something that the young people have done and I want to offer it as an example, I have this moment where I have to check myself. Am I talking about them without them? You know, I'm about to go on this weekend, this week to go up to Ottawa to this event. And I'm supposed to present the work of the Youth Research Lab. And as I'm presenting, I am constantly second guessing myself. You know, am I going too far if I show this image? Am I going too far? If I say, how much can I say about this without violating my own ethical principle that I don't talk about it without them, you know? Absolutely. And they usually are sort of we usually say this, these have been approved. And it is true. These images are images that we, that we as a collective have agreed to can be shared. And with the young people who are here have said, yes, you may show that image, but even still, you know? Because we haven't come we haven't sat down to decide what should be said about that image in that context. What if somebody has a question? 

  You know, this is probably in terms of dissemination, is the tension that I struggle with the most on a more regular basis? It seems small, you know, like, you know, figuring out what to say about something. And yet I mean, it is so big. 

  Sarah: It’s huge. You know, even while we’re talking, I have the example of the glitter chapter. You know, even while we're talking, I gave the example the glitter chapter. Well, that's not mine to share. And I'm fully cognizant of that. So if we decide to do anything with this, there is no way that is going to stay on the tape unless I get permission from because otherwise then it feels gross, like I'm taking credit for something that had nothing to do with me. Right. You know. And so then how do you.. and then and then for me, it's particularly tricky for me as a young scholar that's expected to go out and share my work in these venues. But I can't always do it with folks by my side. I try. You know, I try to prioritize that. But it's not always possible because of the expectations of academia. And in truth, a lot of young folks I work with, they don't want to go to a critical geography conference, you know, or like, you know, they, they wanna go to the professional conferences. They want to speak to policymakers, to clinicians, to funders and say this is what needs to change. But the academic spaces aren't really for that. And so then how that gets to that for me is where I kind of navigate that. 

  If it's a purely academic conference and even still, there are certain pieces of our work, you know, like so we have we spent a lot of time as a group thinking about the idea of journey and what journey means for thinking about community engagement work. And so we coauthored a paper on it. It just got accepted. Yay. It'll be out this week. And that's a coauthored piece. And because it's coauthored, I would never present that by myself. Even if and I could, you know, the academic powers it be, you know, would it you know, folks would have their names on it. And I could stand up and do it, but I only do it in community spaces. And the one time where it was presented by myself, I made sure that my other co authors were in the room. It was a 10 minute presentation. So it wasn't possibly be shared. But they are in the room. And they when it came to me to answer questions on the panel, we previously agreed that I would defer to them and they would answer. So that's how we kind of intervene. Yeah, but you know it. Yeah. It when I am standing at that critical geography conference, usually I'll also talk about methods. I feel like that's a bit safer. But it’s like, it's tricky. It's I always think like you know or. Yeah. When you have to answer questions it's like, well you don't you can't. You don't. You can't expect what questions are going to come out.

  Rubén: Just to kind of know this difference that you made reference several times to the fact that oftentimes the people that you work with have already established leadership roles and have gained leadership experience. And it's interesting to hear what kinds of opportunities that opens in terms of the initiative that they take and the demands that they make of the work. And, you know, I find that, for example, when it comes to facilitation or even…  we end up doing a lot of mentoring, we end up doing a lot of, in a sense, training. And I don't know how to talk about this. It's so hard to talk about, you know, when this aspect of the work of of capacity building of skill, an element of learning how to make it…  it’s so hard to talk about it from. Perhaps because we have this ethical commitment to beginning from their strengths. You know, we have this ethical commitment to begin the work that we do from an asset-based perspective that think first of this strength that they bring to the work. And I can do that, but it's hard. It's funny to then talk about the areas of growth that we all have. We all have areas of growth. I have still have areas of growth, even though I have been doing this for 10 years. So obviously they've only been doing this for a year. So, of course, they have areas of growth. But how do you talk about this? Like you can hear me stumbling, I don't even know how to talk about it. 

  Sarah: I mean, it’s interesting. For me, I think about its collective capacity building, because in a lot of my projects, we also have these kind of formalized, informalized training pieces. But for me, a lot of my work is informed by kind of Freire  and ideas of education and popular education that even in those trainings, it's always starting with their lived experience and what they already know.  And so I don't know if I don't know if I do it well, but it's a lot more integrated into the work we're doing rather than standalone. I also know I've worked on projects before, not with young people, but I think it's an illustrative example where we have started every meeting with a 10 to 15 minute presentation or workshopy thing that every single person around the table has to do. That's to train all of us on something. And those have been spaces where there have been community members, again, physicians, researchers, staff… all sorts of folks in different roles. And every single person has to do this fifteen minute piece. And that was, it really worked for that one particular project. So I think it’s really kind of shifting how capacity building is framed and thought about. 

  I think one of things that is an aid to the work that I do is the young people that I work with have already come out of a capacity building program. Right? That was a youth led program. And this is really, really key because a lot of young folks I've worked with have also been pushed out of school. You know, some of them have been precariously housed and have spent time on the streets. Many of them have not finished high school. And so these are not the young people that you, who might be running… Imagine running the high school debate team or taking over a meeting. You know, I want to be careful. I want to make it very strengths-based right now. But there's also struggle because life is hard. 

  And because power exists and because we're living, you know, on stolen land, you know, we are living, you know, in an epoch that for a very long time has been white supremacist, you know, and so that can't be ignored in terms of when we think about who comes to the table and who has powers. And so for me, capacity building is also, it's an ethical commitment in terms of making sure that folks have the training that they need, but also to be open enough so that they're training me and to be transparent in that conversation.  And I think that that has really helped things. It's also allowed for a lot of co-training to happen. So you mentioned earlier that you've got this mentorship component to your YPAR project and that's been something that's been really integral to my work as well. 

  Host: Thank you so much for joining us on this episode of The WhyPAR podcast. I’m still reflecting on Sarah and Rubéns' conversation. I’m thinking about their reflections on dissemination as being negotiated in an ongoing way, the importance of being emergent and flexible in decision-making about dissemination products, and the ways they described youth co-lead in academic spaces and intervene in academic literature. 

  Stay tuned for our next episode and see you next time! 

  Special acknowledgements: This podcast acknowledges  "A Seat At The Table"  - an artistic installation led by Lydia Hernandez, Tumaini Lyraruu, Mimi Duong and Chris. It also acknowledges the work of many others, including - but not limited to - those involved in the picturing participation project. 

Details

Sarah Switzer and Rubén Gaztambide-Fernandez from the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto discuss the dissemination of youth knowledge in YPAR. They discuss the opportunities and tensions around knowledge dissemination; honouring youth voices while navigating the politics of dissemination within academic spaces; the importance of relevant and meaningful products; and building collective capacity in youth and adult researchers through YPAR.

Sarah Switzer is a Toronto-based popular educator and community-based participatory researcher. Inspired by fifteen years of working at the intersections of community arts, peer/youth programming, and HIV and Harm Reduction, her larger program of research and teaching explores how to creatively and meaningfully engage communities who experience marginalization in programs, policy change, and collaborative knowledge translation efforts.  Her research interests include critical approaches to participation and engagement (including youth engagement), pedagogy in community-based settings and participatory visual methods.

Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández‘s research and scholarship are concerned with symbolic boundaries and the dynamics of cultural production and processes of identification in educational contexts. He is the Director of the Youth Research Lab at the Centre for Urban Schooling of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, where he is Principal Investigator of the Youth Solidarities Across Boundaries Project, a participatory action research project with Latinx and Indigenous youth in the city of Toronto. His theoretical work focuses on the relationship between creativity, decolonization, and solidarity.

This episode was hosted and directed by Naima Raza, produced by Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández and Sarah Switzer, and supported by Youth Research Lab Research Assistants, Andrea Vela Alarcon and Madeleine Ross.

References and Further Reading

Switzer, S., Lyrauu, T., Apong, K., Bell, O., Manuel-Smith, C., Hernandez, L., McWhinney, P.G., Pariah, S., Seidu, F., Bykes, A., Bykes, A. (2016). What's glitter got to do with it?: Re-imagining harm reduction, decision-making and the politics of youth engagement. In C. Smith & Z. Marshall (Eds.), Critical perspectives on harm reduction: Conflict, institutionalization, co-optation, depoliticization, and direct action. (pp. 113-133). New York: Nova Publishers.

Switzer, S. (2019). Working with photo installation and metaphor: Re-visioning photovoice research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 18, 1609406919872395.

Guerrero, C. A., Gaztambide-Fernández, R., Rosas, M., & Guerrero, E. (2013). Proyecto Latin@ on stage and under the magnifying glass: The possibilities and limitations of a high-profile institutionally sponsored youth participatory action research project [Abstract]. The International Journal of Critical Pedagogy, 4(2).

Gaztambide-Fernández, R. & Guerrero, C. (w/ West-Burns, N., Larrabure, M., Velasquez, M., Granados-Ceja, L., Guerrero, E.) (2011). Proyecto Latino –– Year One. Report to the Toronto District School Board. [Technical Research Report]. Toronto, ON: Centre for Urban Schooling, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto.

Guerrero, C. A. (2014). Rethinking Latin@ Student Engagement: Identification, Community Engagement, and Transformative Learning through Youth Participatory Action Research. University of Toronto. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1807/68130

Switzer S.; Flicker, S., McClelland, A., Chan Carusone, S., Ferguson, T.,B., Herelle, N., Yee, D., Guta, A., Strike, C., (2020) Journeying Together: A visual exploration of “engagement” as a journey in HIV programming and service delivery. Journal of Health and Place, 61, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2019.102247

Episode 1: On Ethical Commitments and the Politics of Dissemination, A Conversation Between Sarah Switzer and Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández (Part One)

• Read Transcript

  Citation:

  Raza, Naima. ““It’s all about your relationships”: On Ethical Commitments and the Politics of Dissemination (Part One).” Produced by Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández and Sarah Switzer at The Youth Research Lab. The WhyPAR Podcast. December 28, 202. Podcast, MP3 audio, https://youthresearchlab.org/whypar

  
  Note on Attribution: 

  When citing the ideas and/or when quoting material from this podcast, please attribute the ideas to the speaker(s) and, whenever possible, note the timestamp or the line where the words quoted can be found. We recommend that you draw on the style conventions typically used for “secondary sources,” such as “quoted in” (Chicago Style) or “as cited in” (APA), and that you cite the source as listed above.

  Host: Welcome to The WhyPAR podcast, a project of the Youth Research Lab at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. 

  Music

  Host: In the WhyPAR podcast, youth participatory action research practitioners discuss the ethical dimensions of conducting YPAR.  In our podcast, we explore issues of co-leading YPAR projects, building relationships, power dynamics, and sharing our work together. The Youth Research Lab is located in Toronto on the traditional territories of the Huron-Wendat, the Seneca, and most recently, the Mississaugas of the Credit River.  

  Sarah: And I always say back to them all, what are the relationships you have? Who are you in relation with? What are the conversations you're already engaging in?

  Host: Welcome everyone! My name is Naima, and I’m the host of The WhyPAR podcast. I’m currently a graduate assistant here at the Youth Research Lab. 

  So, I first came into YPAR as a high school student when I was frustrated by traditional schooling. Around me, I saw that teachers were keepers of knowledge, and that students were seen as passive recipients of knowledge. So, after graduating, I started working for my local school board, in my hometown, as the student voice coordinator where we developed a project for administrators, teachers, and students to come together and conduct YPAR projects in order to take action on issues they saw within their schools. So overall, I come from a background of wanting to use YPAR to support youth, and particularly marginalized youth, in becoming critically conscious of their educational environments. And, I think this is important because we know that schools are a microcosms of the world.

  Okay, now enough about me. Joining us today will be Dr. Sarah Switzer, a YPAR practitioner and postdoctoral fellow at the University of Toronto, and Dr. Ruben Gaztambide-Fernandez, a YPAR practitioner, a professor at the University of Toronto, and the director of the Youth Research Lab. 

  Today’s episode will be the first in a two-part conversation between Sarah and Ruben, where they will be discussing ethical commitments and the politics of knowledge dissemination in YPAR. Together, they’ll explore, how do ethical commitments play out in different institutional settings? What are the opportunities, challenges, and tensions that arise? And how can we YPAR as a means to not just increase youth participation, but as a means to enable social transformation?

  So before we jump in, a little bit of context. Sarah and Ruben have known each other for a while. While they bring similar ethical commitments to their YPAR projects, their work takes place in very different contexts. Ruben has been working in YPAR for about 10 years, largely with Indigenous and Latinx young people, in the context of schooling, and particularly urban schooling. Sarah’s work, on the other hand, takes place in the HIV or harm reduction sector. Sarah has been working in participatory research and YPAR for 10 years, with a longer history of running youth-led HIV/sexual health and harm reduction programs within settings such as community health centres, youth led organizations and youth led initiatives. Her work involves working with young people living with or impacted by HIV and young people who use drugs. And of course within this category, there are lots of different intersecting identities.

  Their conversation was recorded in two parts: the first part was recorded on zoom, and the second was recorded at the Youth Research Lab. The Lab is a super fun, creative, and imaginative space with chart papers and posters and markers scattered everywhere. So, it’s a pretty big contrast from the brutalist architecture we find in OISE. 

  Ok, so that's enough of an intro for me, now let’s turn it to Sarah and Ruben.

  Rubén: Why don’t you just start by giving listeners a sense of the projects you’re working on. 

  Sarah: Sure, thank’s Rubén. 

  Laughs

  This doesn’t feel awkward at all.

  Ruben: Not at all. Let’s see how long it takes before it’s not awkward. 

  Sarah: My larger program of research is really about, really seeks to explore how to meaningfully engage folks who experience marginalization in program and policy change. And what that kind of looks like in practice is historically, I’ve worked in the HIV and harm reduction sector, so I work with people living with HIV, folks who use drugs, and people living with or impacted by HIV. So it’s been a lot about having conversations with folks and within organizations about how do we leverage their experience within organizational change. And so, together we identify issue of concern and we develop projects together that we then implement and one of the cutting themes across all my work is they all involve participation or collaboration in some way, participation is very much a spectrum, and they also engage in forms of cultural projection or what we might call the arts or other creative ways of dialoguing about issues. And that’s kind of my work historically. More recently, I’ve shifted my work to look at how community engaged practitioners are adapting their participatory work to, in the context of COVID. How they’re moving online and in remote contexts to have really critical conversations in ways that make sense for folks. 

  So Rubén I’m so curious. Yeah, tell me. I mean, we’ve worked together for a number of years, and I know your work very well. But since this is a podcast, can you tell be a little bit about your work and what you’re doing? 

  Rubén: Yeah, of course. So, the main focus of the work, the participatory research that I’ve been doing for the last decade has been in the context of schools, what some people would call school-based YPAR. And that’s a really interesting context to work within because as a lot of participatory research practitioners would say that schools are antithetical to the commitments and to the ethical commitments of participatory research right? When we think of schools, we think of places that are highly hierarchical, where roles are very defined and prescribed, right? The teacher is a teacher, the one who knows. The students are the ones who are learning. And where everything kind of works within parameters that are strict and of course that runs against the principles of participatory research as a horizontal space where everybody is acknowledged as a knowledge producer, everybody is acknowledged as a learner and where we’ve kind of negotiating power relations. So, in a lot of ways I come into that work, and to do the relational ethical work reluctantly because of those contradictions. But in our case, our work with young people in schools began at the behest of the students themselves. So, we started this work doing some exploratory research on the experiences of Latinx Latino youth in schools and at the end of that year the students themselves were saying, okay, so what are we doing next? What’s going to be the next step of the project?

  And we. It was at that point and it was in the context of their own provocation that we said to them, well you know, if you want us to keep doing this work, how about we teach you how to do research and you decide what should be researched? And they were really excited about that idea, right? And so our work was possible because the young people themselves said to us, we want to keep doing this. We want to learn how to do this and we see, we think of this as a kind of political action that we’d like to be able to pursue. So, it was in a very particular context and a very particular opportunity, right? And then also, the other piece of about our work that in a sense makes us navigating these contradictions possible is that, especially in the last five years, we’ve developed a very deep collaboration with the educators at the urban Indigneous Education Centre which is a part of the Toronto District School Board and which is itself a school. And it’s a school that’s very committed to notions of Indigenous knowledge and Indigenous sovereignty of education. And so it’s a school that in itself has a commitment to a kind of education that is in a way antithetical to most types of schooling. And we’ve been working within that schooling space over the last few years and with teachers in that context. And because of that commitment that has also facilitated a space where we can really challenge some of those hierarchies and we can really sort of work against the sort of parameters of schooling. And try to really honour the principles and the political commitments of participatory research. 

  And I think along those lines, you know, one of the things that I’m really interested to hear about and that I love to hear you think through and talk about is this question about ethical commitments, right? Because for us that has been such a tension and I would love know and to hear from you, you know, what are some of the ethical commitments that you bring to this work and how do you see those ethical commitments play out in practice and sort of, what are the kinds of challenges that come up in your work?

  Sarah: Thank you for that, Rubén. And for starting with your own work and the origins of your work. I think, you know, something that kind of strikes me and it connects to ethical commitments, but it’s also the starting place is like, it is the relationships, you know? And how projects come about. And yeah, I appreciate your starting with the fact that you know, with this project there are so many starting foundational conversations before the research you know, happens or takes place, and you know, one thing I’m often struck by, you know, in having conversations with folks that are interested in getting into participatory research is, you know, they often ask, who do I start? And I always say back to them, it’s all about your relationships. What are the relationships you have? Who are you in relation with? What are the conversations you’re already engaging in? And so, with respect to commitments, that’s one of the foundational pieces of YPAR. You know, and what that looks like in practice? It’s messy. It’s complicated. There are a lot of contradictions. And so, you know, figuring out ways to move through those relationships and move through the work with the spirit of transpar- you know, fairness, equity, collaboration, transparency, I think is one of the really big ones. Flexibility and adaptability, and knowing that folks in any participatory project are in it for different reasons, and that’s okay. And how do we honour the spirit or the role that different folks bring to a project and the different expectations that they all bring to a project which are deeply shaped and governed by the contexts, you know? One of the things I appreciated you raised how the context of schooling shapes what is or is not possible within YPAR and then how you are pushing against that even within the project itself. Yeah. 

  Rubén: Yeah, pushing against and reaching towards, which is, we’re in a sense, part of the reason why working within schools for me is such an important commitment is because I believe in schooling. I believe in the principle of public schooling. And I think that our intention is to reach towards the type of schooling that we want, right? It is to bring this ethical commitment to in a sense push against the parameters of school in order to reach towards the kind of schooling that we want, the kind of schooling that we want to imagine for the young people that we work with, the young people that we are about, for the young people whose lives we want to be part of transforming. And I say be part because obviously we’re not in charge of transforming it, you know? It’s their life to transform, but we want to be part of that transformation. And I think, you know, the piece about the ethics, you know, the ethical commitment to relationality and transparency, you know, it’s so important. 

  And I think, you know, when oftentimes when people come with a question, now how do we get started? I get this question from doctoral students who come in with a strong commitment. A lot of times people are from the prime that what matters most is the commitment, that what matters most is that, well I’m committed to this princi-, I’m committed to this ethic. I’m committed to this political project. And so therefore that’s my point of departure and for me actually, the point of departure is their relationship. Not the commitment. In fact, I think that their relationships are far more difficult to build, far more challenging and time consuming, and more important as a point of departure than the commitments. Because the commitments can come later, but you can’t start from the commitments. You can’t start from the commitments and then hope the relationships will come. You have to start from the relationships and then build towards the commitment. And I think that that’s sometimes for many folks who I think discover YPAR and want to do that kind of work, but they start from the commitment instead of the relationship. 

  Sarah: And so often I think within academic spaces, the commitments manifest through an academic language. And, a lot of the folks that I work with, they’ve like, I don’t want your fancy words, they’ve like I don’t care. I don’t care what your commitments are, I want to see it in action. And that just takes time. You know, like, I think, you know, this is disgusting and kind of the literature, but I don't think it can be over estimated that like relationship building takes time. And it’s all about, it’s not even about the research. It’s about the other moments, about the conversation at the bus stop, or you’re waiting to get on the TTC in Toronto, or you know, the chat on the phone or the conversation over sharing a meal. You know, that is the work. The showing up for events in people’s lives, you know that you’re in collaboration with.  I think that’s so much of it. And then the research just kind of comes out of that because you’re committed to being in relationship to each other.

  And you know I think about, you know, a lot of the young people that I've worked with, you know, we’ve worked together for some of them like almost a decade now. And they’ve gone on and they’re leading their own YPAR projects. RIght? And so, the relationships are really first and foremost and it’s interesting to circle back to what you’re saying about transforming the culture of schools. You and I work in very different contexts, but there’s a similarity in the sense that in working within the nonprofit sector and you know, lots of folks will talk about the nonprofit industrial complex, and there are many, many, many tensions there and challenges with funding and larger histories of you know, the nonprofit system being a very colonial institution for example, a very racist and anti-Black racist sector. And so one of the commitments that we’re kind of pushing- the pieces that I think the projects that I’m invested in working, well we’re trying to push towards is that, you know, we’re also trying to carve out space within that sector, within that program so that, you know, folks can lead and create their own projects and spaces which may have very liberatory goals and aims and also contradictions of course. But, trying to figure out how we can use YPAR - not in an instrumentalist way - but as a launching pad to something else. 

  Host: Sarah and Rubén go on to continue their conversation at the Youth Research Lab. 

  Sarah: Even as researchers we can, myself included, can become very overly invested in our own projects and around this idea of like, participation and there being some star or, you know, you achieve, right? If a project is the most participatory… and there can be harm that can be caused.

  Rubén: And there's so much that becomes invisible. There's so many modes of participation that become invisible. I mean, in your own work and the way that you think about non-participation. I think of that when I think about all the models of participation that are invisible to these parameters that inform these kind of normative practices of participation. But I was thinking about the difference. Right. That, you know, it would be, there are a lot of people who work in schools who would like to think that they… let me and many paraphrase that… there are a lot of people in education who bring commitments from participation to the work in schools in principle that that, in principle, would have sort of, you know, a commitment to the idea that learning should be student centered, that students should be makers of curriculum, that that students should take center stage, that bring those principles in. And I don't I don't doubt those principles. But I don't think that I would describe schooling as a context in which participation is taken for granted in the way that you're describing it and perhaps in a sense, because, you know, schooling as a structure is a that is intended to parse, that is intended to separate students by default. You know, even grades are a kind of separation. So, this is defined on separation? And so in a sense, what is the consequence? 

  The worst consequence in the context of schools of not including students is that students leave, that students decide that schooling is not for me and certainly a lot of the students... you know, the reason why we started doing this work was to sort of address the fact that Latin American students and Indigenous students were not finishing school at a 40 percent rate. So 40 percent of students who started in not only Indigenous and Latinx groups, but also in other communities, were not finishing high school. And that's a pretty high rate for something. 

  You know, we could sort of we could have a whole conversation about whether finishing school is worth it. You know, and what school does to young people. But the fact is that not finishing high school is a very strong predictor of poverty. Yeah. Yeah. And that not finishing high school is a very strong predictor of poor health, of poor socioeconomic. Right. So however you slice it, finishing high school matters. You know, and so putting that question aside and assuming that we want to come up with ways to engage students in school so that they do finish high school. Right. Participation or these participatory methods become, from our perspective, one way to do that. And I think I think in a lot of ways probably our work speaks for itself. Like, you know, most of the students that have been in our courses have been able to finish high school. We contribute to that because it helps them with credit accumulation and we contribute to that because we help them financially. Right. And we can talk about these details, but I'm thinking about the difference, right, between a place where, as you're describing, the people who have the most to lose are the ones demanding. You know, as opposed to a context in which the ones who have the most to lose a lot of times don't even imagine the possibility of what participatory schooling might look like and in fact, come to us very suspicious of our intentions.

  And I was gonna say, like one of the one of the primary ethical principles that drive our work and so many commitments I bring in is the principle of transparency and fairness. We can talk about fairness in a bit, but that principle of transparency in this context is I think for that reason, very important. This is where I'm kind of drawing the connection because the students, when we invite them to join us, when we sort of, you know, interpellate them into this position, they come in very suspicious. And that transparency of sorts, being really open with them about both our intentions as well as the challenges and parameters that shape that. And maintaining that transparency is really crucial for that process that the students even begin to imagine what a participatory schooling could even look like, you know, and to begin to open themselves up for that experience. I mean, in a sense, it's part of that process of I can't remember right now where the authors are, but if we transcribe this, we'll figure it out. But others who think about participatory methods would make a distinction between projects that involve buy-in. So the participants have to be sort of convinced that this is going to be participatory or brought into a project and then they have to sort of buy into the project versus projects that are… and I don’t remember the phrase that they use. But where is initiated by the participants, where the participants say, I want to do this, come help me, right where our community comes to. And we've had experiences like that, too. But there have been fewer and definitely in schools. You know, it's a buying model. It's a buy-in model. Here's what we're offering. Here's what we want to do with you. Come check us out. Come try us out. Right. It’s not the student saying we want participatory schooling. It's us saying here's an opportunity. Give us give us a shot. Like, try this out. Yeah, so I was just thinking about those differences.

  Sarah: And, I mean, there are similarities, too, because I can... You know, I see that there's this large demand or expectation for participatory approaches in my work, but that's also very top down in the sense that it has become kind of taken for granted assumption within the field itself. And that doesn't always trickle down to the folks who are actually experiencing things. So I definitely have also experienced folks who have been quite suspicious. You know, when I start working with them, folks who won't even tell me, you know, I'll come into a space and we'll be, I'll be introducing myself and chatting with folks and just hanging out, which I often do at the beginning of any project. And I've had folks be like, I'm not telling you my name, you know. And it hasn't been until someone else will come over and we'll say, oh, no, I you know, I know Sarah. She's cool. This is how I know her. And then folks will be like, OK, I'm still not telling you my name, but I'll talk to you for a little bit, you know? And then some of those folks have now been people that I've worked with for years. 

  But folks are very suspicious and rightly so, in part because I think because they’ve been tokenized, they've been harmed by this work. They've gotten their expectations or promises have been broken, you know, and I think that that's where transparency really comes in. And that, for me, is also a really fundamental value of negotiating what is possible and the limits of what is possible. And folks are similarly quite surprised when they're like, oh, no, we're actually you know, when I say to them, so we get to decide together and they're like, no, no, no, we don't, and I’m like, no, no, we do!, and they’re like, no… no we don’t, like no no, we are…

  Or when I, even something as simple as you know, one of the last projects that I worked on was working with three organizations. And we were looking at how folks within each of these sites kind of understood kind of engagement. And it was a co-theorizing project. And we used photovoice. And at the end of the project, we decided collectively to create these installations. I had no idea what I was doing because I had not planned for any of these installations to emerge. And I remember at all those meetings saying, what are you going to do? 

  And they're like, well, I thought you had an idea. And I said, I don't know. I didn't know what I'm doing. And then kind of just looking at me blankly, I mean, like so we're really just gonna figure it out right now. And I'm like, I have no plan. And I remember at one point someone said, but you're the researcher. And I said, yeah.. so what? You know? I feel like there was a a pivotal shifting that we've been working together for many months at this point. But they're like, oh, we really can do whatever we want. And I was like, yeah, you know? 

  And so I think that there's a lot of opportunity there when things shift. But then it also is important to be transparent around when there are limits, because some of the dangers are when you say, well, we can do whatever we want and then someone, you know, people make contributions or go along with a certain plan and then like, oh, but not that. Oh, but not that. Oh, but not that. And that's when folks get their back up. Right? So how do you…  it's just it's this careful dance between opening things up for possibility, but also being very transparent along the way when there are limits.

  And depending on the size of the group, like we've done collaborative budgeting before where I've taken out the grants and we've actually plotted things in alongside dollar signs, you know, on the wall to kind of attempt to, I don't know, do this work together. And in a way that we're all acknowledging the constraints simultaneously, you know, so it's not kind of an after the fact, but we realized together, oh, we want to do this, but we can't. And I think that that's important for the work. But it takes a very long time. This is the thing. It takes an extraordinary long time. 

  Rubén: And time is one of those things that when working within schools, the timescales of school have such a huge impact on the way that we do this work. And we tried to push back against it and restructure the work that we do with young people in schools. We try to use a different time structure. So rather than meeting every day for 50 minutes, we meet once a week for four hours, which gives us a lot of flexibility and a lot of sort of, you know, opportunities for allowing relationships to evolve, for people to get mad at each other and work through that anger for ideas to really evolve in ways that the usual parameters of schools, even in an hour and a half or a two hour format, just is not possible. It does not work. But we are still limited by the semester or even the year structure of schooling, the way that marks are done. The flow of, you know, when students are doing the final exam, when students have high demands on other aspects of their schooling. And when you know the breaks and all of that presents a set of constraints to what is possible that are very different from being in a situation where there are no time constraints or where the community itself decides, you know. 

  So I guess, you know, when I think about that, there's a kind of ethic of responsiveness, right? There's a kind of ethic of responsibility of responding to the flows of how things happen in a space that is also really important for the work. And that, I think, different kinds of institutions impose different kinds of time frame parameters that end up mediating our ability to be responsive to the needs of our community. Right. I mean, if we have participants who, for whatever reason, are unable to attend at various times, right now, we're actually dealing with this with because we all started our project two weeks ago, we had two sessions. And because we usually don't start with the beginning of the semester, we always have issues with enrollment and attendance at the beginning. 

  And so on the one hand, we have this time constraint. When the institution is telling us the students must be present for these many hours in order to receive credit, and on the other end, when we have this commitment, around responsiveness of responding to the needs of young people, responding to their time commitments to the work commitments. 

  And so we tried to be really flexible for figuring out how do we, on the one hand, be responsive to all the complexity of the lives that students are bringing while at the same time satisfying these requirements. That is that the school district is putting on us… and we find creative ways to do it. These might be one of those things that I better not describe. But it is a challenge to live out that ethical commitment within those constraints. And time is one of those things that I probably didn't think 10 years ago I could probably imagine it, but I didn't think 10 years ago how much time would become one of those dimensions of the work that would be challenging. 

  Sarah: And then how do you know? And I think there in terms of ethical commitments like earlier, we're talking about transparency. Well, flexibility and creativity, I actually think are also absolutely commitment types, not creativity in the way that we often kind of think of it. But how do you then, when you have these challenges are often imposed from the institution. How do you then navigate accordingly?  

  Host: Thank you so much for joining us on this episode of The WhyPAR podcast. I hope you learned as much as I did from Rubén and Sarah… some of the key learnings I’m taking away from their conversation was  the importance of relationships in YPAR, about understanding participation as a cyclical, about the constraints we face while working in different sectors and spaces and institutions, and being responsive to communities while working in these constraints which can be a challenge. Tune in for Part 2, where Sarah and Ruben will continue their conversation. See you then!

Details

Sarah Switzer and Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández from the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto discuss ethical commitments while conducting YPAR. They reflect on the importance of relationships while conducting YPAR; the challenges and opportunities faced while conducting YPAR across different settings such as schools and community health centres; participants’ motivations for involvement, and the ethical commitments that guide their work.

Sarah Switzer is a Toronto-based popular educator and community-based participatory researcher. Inspired by fifteen years of working at the intersections of community arts, peer/youth programming, and HIV and Harm Reduction, her larger program of research and teaching explores how to creatively and meaningfully engage communities who experience marginalization in programs, policy change, and collaborative knowledge translation efforts. Her research interests include critical approaches to participation and engagement (including youth engagement), pedagogy in community-based settings and participatory visual methods.

Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández's research and scholarship are concerned with symbolic boundaries and the dynamics of cultural production and processes of identification in educational contexts. He is the Director of the Youth Research Lab at the Centre for Urban Schooling of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, where he is Principal Investigator of the Youth Solidarities Across Boundaries Project, a participatory action research project with Latinx and Indigenous youth in the city of Toronto. His theoretical work focuses on the relationship between creativity, decolonization, and solidarity.

This episode was hosted and directed by Naima Raza, produced by Rubén Gaztambide-Fernández and Sarah Switzer, and supported by Youth Research Lab Research Assistants, Andrea Vela Alarcon and Madeleine Ross.