Here are some ways gatekeeping could manifest in a school context: - Teachers and administrators controlling what research topics or questions students explore. They may steer students away from topics seen as too controversial or critical of the school. - Strict schedules and class periods that limit when and how long students can work on their research. This could rush the process or prevent deeper exploration. - Requirements to get administrator approval for any activities or events related to the research. This adds bureaucracy that could delay or alter the work. - School policies around technology or internet use that hinder how students collect and share information for their projects. - Fears among staff that the research could reflect poorly on the school and impact things like funding

1. C H A L L E N G E S O F P R I N C O N T E X T S
W I T H Y O U N G P E O P L E
The majority of challenges and concerns for researchers using PR
approaches with young people can be traced back to dominant cultural
discourses of young people, as these frame expectations of who they are, and
how adults respond to them. Existing literature of PR in contexts with young
people will now provide more details on how these discourses manifest
themselves in context, and how they inform the challenges and
concerns raised.

2. D I S C O U R S E S O F Y O U T H ‘ AT D E F I C I T ’
• Researchers working with young people across education, youth
work, and civil justice contexts highlight the hyper-regulated
nature of their lives which arise out of dichotomous cultural
discourses around the perceived identities of youth. These deficit
discourses view young people as being ill-informed, and
therefore lacking the knowledge and skills to participate in
contexts affecting them.
• This means they can be viewed simultaneously as ‘at risk’ -
vulnerable, voiceless, ignorant - and ‘risky’ - disengaged,
misguided, susceptible to radicalisation (Lohmeyer, 2020; Wright,
2020; Cahill & Davdand, 2018; Groundwater-Smith et al., 2015).

3. • This dual perception is overtly and covertly harmful in policy and the everyday
lives of young people, because adults choose between seeing young people as
agentive and responsible social actors who are responsible for what they do
(who therefore require punitive regulation for their behaviour), or as vulnerable,
incapable, unskilled decision makers (and thus in need of protective adult
intervention).
D I S C O U R S E S O F Y O U T H ‘ AT D E F I C I T ’

4. A C T I V I T Y:
How does your prior reading of critical consciousness inform
your understanding of YPAR?
What are the connections between YPAR and Co-
production?

5. • YPAR researchers work to challenge and subvert these discourses which
work to place them in disempowered positions. Groundwater-Smith et
al., emphasise the impact of these discourses as incapacitating for young
people, specifically those with disabilities, ‘where the
very categorisations are a form of gatekeeping, not only in research but in
children and young people's rights to participate in society’ (2015:5).
• These discourses pervade some experiences of researchers working in
contexts with young people.
D I S C O U R S E S O F Y O U T H ‘ AT D E F I C I T ’

6. D I S C O U R S E S O F Y O U T H ‘ AT D E F I C I T ’
• As a foundation of PR and co-production approaches is the relationship
between the participants and the researchers, the results of youth-deficit
discourses can impact everyone involved, along with the research process and
the data produced.
• However, as the framework of YPAR drives a succinct awareness and targeted
critical analysis of deficit youth discourses.
• The injustices that can result from these discourses are brought to the fore in
order to challenge and change them. The identification of the following
challenges and concerns are enabled by the critical perspective of YPAR
researchers.

7. G AT E K E E P I N G A N D R E G U L AT I O N
O F Y O U T H
• Groundwater-Smith et al.'s (2015) point about how young people are labelled
is indicative of the intersecting deficit discourses that affect young people,
specifically in how gatekeepers/ gatekeeping policies arise from these labels.
• Gatekeepers can complicate YPAR processes, as they could dilute the
opportunities for young people to follow through on their independent
decisions, particularly if the young people participating are situated in highly
regulated environments, such as schools or in youth justice systems.
• These environments not only present literal gatekeeping within the context -
such as timetable constraints (Kim, 2016), or laws specific to young people
(Lohmeyer, 2020), but also sets expectations of behaviour and capabilities
(Groundwater-Smith et al., 2015). These expectations can be enacted by
adults and young people of themselves.

8. G AT E K E E P I N G A N D R E G U L AT I O N O F
Y O U T H
• Who the researcher is seen to ‘be’, their function in context, or place in social hierarchies, also
has documented complications in PR with young people, specifically in relation to the
common insider/outsider status of research being conducted with community groups or
contexts in which young people are grouped (for example, education, health, youth work,
social work).
• Researchers who are outsiders to the context may have difficulty building trusting
relationships with young people because they are seen as removed from their lives and
experiences.
• Researchers who are insiders to the community of participants have found that the
distinctions between their roles created a number of challenges, particularly around emotional
responsibility to those they worked with (Mayan & Daum, 2016). The positions of insiders or
outsiders shifted in various experiences of these researchers, which they had to navigate

9. Think of the different ways that gatekeeping could
manifest in a school context.
A C T I V I T Y