Background: The Use of Research Evidence (URE) and Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR) fields have developed in parallel. YPAR grapples with challenges of timeliness, 'traction', and sustained impact: Where does YPAR evidence go, who hears it, and what happens after youth present their findings? URE frameworks developed primarily with professional research in mind, leaving unexamined the use of evidence generated by students within the systems youth seek to change. Position: Cross-pollination of YPAR and URE strengthens both fields and requires intentionality. URE concepts such as absorptive capacity and brokering illuminate pathways and barriers to YPAR impact, yet must center internal knowledge generated by youth, address power dynamics, and resist reducing YPAR to a transmission model of evidence delivery. Arguments: Drawing on our UC-Berkeley-SFUSD Research-Practice Partnership focused on promoting student engagement and reducing chronic absenteeism, we examine how URE concepts sharpened our questions about organizational learning and decision-making. Districts must expand absorptive capacity to include YPAR as legitimate internal knowledge. Brokering must account for power differentials when youth critique the institutions that serve them. Political and symbolic uses of YPAR risk tokenizing youth input when decision-makers fail to act - or act in ways that contradict youth goals. Implications: Advancing authentic YPAR integration into system routines requires strategic advance planning, structures connecting evidence to decision-makers, and intentional space for multiple interest holders to shape questions and actions. We call for large-scale empirical investigation of YPAR URE, comparative designs to assess the value-add of YPAR, and systems mapping to clarify pathways to impact.
Ozer et al. (Thu,) studied this question.