Advancing and Mobilizing Knowledge about Youth-Initiated Mentoring through Community-Based Participatory Research: A Scoping Review

Abstract

The core purpose of Youth-Initiated Mentoring (YIM) is to adopt a more collaborative approach to mentoring by inviting youth to nominate and select their own mentors. This article performs a scoping review of research on YIM to identify common methodologies and emerging evidence from available studies. Six online research databases were used to identify peer-reviewed academic articles published in English. No date restrictions were applied. In total, nine peer-reviewed articles were identified and reviewed. The main findings from these studies indicate that collaborating with youth during the mentor nomination process offers several benefits to youth in mentoring relationships. Based on the knowledge gained from this scoping review, a secondary purpose of this article is to encourage researchers to adopt a more participatory approach to their future investigations of YIM. Despite YIM’s recent exploration into more collaborative approaches to practice, the model has yet to fully embrace more collaborative approaches to research. To address this limitation, this article begins a productive dialogue between YIM and Community-Based Participatory Research. Specifically, this article reviews four of the principles within Community-Based Participatory Research and surfaces helpful strategies that researchers can use to begin celebrating the local knowledge and expertise of youth and their communities.

1. Introduction

Youth Mentoring is defined as a supportive relationship between a young person and an older and more experienced adult [1,2]. Historically, youth mentoring has been represented by two streams of research and practice. In the first stream, researchers and practitioners explore the organic forms of support that young people receive from the caring adults in their local schools, neighbourhoods, and communities. This stream has been labeled Natural Mentoring as it explores the benefits of mentoring relationships that develop organically between young people and the supportive adults in their communities [3]. In the second stream, researchers and practitioners seek to replicate the benefits of natural mentoring by introducing caring adults into the lives of young people. Conceptualized as an intervention, this stream has been labelled Formal Mentoring as it explores the benefits of mentoring relationships that have been formalized between young people and adult volunteers [1].

To date, four meta-analyses have advanced our understanding of the effects of formal youth mentoring programs [4,5,6,7]. The average effect size observed in each of these meta-analyses has been consistently small-to-modest (g = 0.19 [4]; d = 0.18 [5]; d = 0.21 [6]; g = 0.21 [7]). The consistency of these modest effects, despite decades of research into the determinants of high-quality relationships and best-practices, has led researchers to consider how the impact of youth mentoring programs can be broadened and strengthened. To accomplish this, some researchers have started to explore more community-oriented approaches to mentoring that celebrate and embrace the existing strengths of communities [8]. As a result of this exploration, a third stream of research and practice has emerged. As a hybrid model, Youth-Initiated Mentoring (YIM) seeks to combine the strengths of both natural and formal mentoring by helping young people recognize the natural mentors in their own communities and empowering them to formalize these pre-existing relationships into sustainable forms of support [8].

2. Purpose

The first purpose of this article is to perform a scoping review of research on YIM to identify methodologies used and emerging evidence from available studies. Scoping reviews are often used to “… summarize and disseminate research findings, to identify research gaps, and to make recommendations for future research” [9] (p. 141). In addition, scoping reviews can help identify “the way research has been conducted” in a particular field by identifying common methodologies [10] (p. 2). As a new and emerging approach to mentoring, the body of research on YIM is still relatively small, providing a valuable opportunity to conduct a scoping review of our current knowledge and suggest areas for future growth and innovation.

Building from the results of our scoping review, the second purpose of this article is to encourage researchers to adopt a more participatory approach to their future investigations of YIM. Our scoping review discovered that despite YIM’s recent exploration into more community-oriented approaches to practice, the model has yet to fully embrace more community-oriented approaches to research. To address this issue, this article introduces and begins a productive dialogue between YIM and Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR).

This article is divided into five sections. Section 1 introduces YIM and describes our scoping review strategy. Section 2 presents findings from the scoping review. Section 3 introduces CBPR and explores the benefits and considerations of adopting a more participatory approach to research. Section 4 describes common ground for YIM and CBPR, principles of CBPR, and strategies for applying CBPR to YIM. Section 5 synthesizes key insights and concludes the article.

3. Section 1: Introduction to YIM and Description of Scoping Review Strategy

3.1. Youth-Initiated Mentoring

The core purpose of YIM is to adopt a more collaborative and participatory approach to mentoring by inviting young people to nominate and select their own mentors [8]. For decades, formal youth mentoring programs have sought to improve the lives of young people who are “at-risk” by assigning them mentors from different communities and life circumstances [8]. Some scholars believe that matching young people with unfamiliar adults who live in very different social and cultural contexts may be contributing to the relatively transient nature of these relationships and their modest impact [8]. In response, YIM seeks to celebrate and build upon the existing strengths of communities by empowering young people to cultivate their own mentoring relationships [8]. Working in partnership with program staff—and sometimes their primary caregivers—youth begin by creating a visual representation of their social network and the various caring adults in their lives [8]. This activity intends to help young people celebrate their existing relationships and identify the types of support provided by each adult. Youth are then empowered to begin cultivating their own mentoring opportunities by contacting one of these supportive adults and expressing an interest in formalizing their pre-existing relationship [8]. Adults who agree to become mentors are then screened and trained by program staff and invited to begin developing a more formalized and consistent relationship with their mentee [8]. In a recent meta-analysis of YIM, these innovative strategies were found to have a small-to-moderate effect size (g = 0.30) on youth outcomes [11].

3.2. Search Strategy for Scoping Review

We conducted a scoping review to systematically search for published literature on YIM. Our review was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for Scoping Reviews [PRISMA-ScR] [12]. Our study selection process is summarized in Figure 1. We used the search term “Youth Initiated Mentoring” to gather relevant articles across six research databases: Education Source, ERIC, Google Scholar, Psych Info, SCOPUS, and Web of Science. We chose these databases due to their reputations, comprehensiveness, and coverage of a broad range of disciplines. Using this search term, we searched for articles containing the term “Youth Initiated Mentoring” in their titles, abstracts, and/or lists of keywords. Our last search of all six databases was conducted on 15 October 2022. In total, our database search yielded 325 documents for review. After removing 49 duplicates, we were left with 276 documents for further review.

All remaining articles were downloaded and imported into a Microsoft Excel sheet for our first cycle of review. Our Excel sheet contained the following columns for each downloaded article: author(s), title, year, journal, abstract, keywords, and full-text document. We added two additional columns (“Abstract Screening” and “Full-Text Screening”) with corresponding codes for screening purposes (0 = exclude, 1 = include, and 2 = not sure). Using this Excel sheet, the first author conducted a deeper screening of each article’s title and abstract to determine if the article met our eligibility criteria. Our eligibility criteria included: articles published in a peer-reviewed academic journal using the exact phrase “Youth Initiated Mentoring,” written in English, and reporting on primary qualitative, quantitative, and/or mixed-methods data related to YIM. No date restrictions were applied to capture as many studies as possible. This first cycle of screening resulted in 265 documents being removed as they did not meet our inclusion criteria. For example, 9 documents were theoretical in nature and did not report on primary data related to YIM, while 256 documents were either not peer-reviewed and/or included the term “Youth Initiated Mentoring” in their introduction, literature review, or discussion section, but did not report on primary data specifically related to YIM. Each of the 11 remaining articles were then subjected to a deeper round of screening.

Our second cycle of screening was conducted by both authors and involved a careful reading of the full text of each downloaded article to determine if the article met our eligibility criteria. Using the Excel sheet, both authors judged whether each article: (a) met our eligibility criteria, (b) should be excluded, or (c) were not sure about the status of the article. During this cycle, disagreements between the reviewers were discussed and resolved to reach consensus. This second cycle of screening resulted in 2 documents being removed. The first document was removed as it was a meta-analysis and did not meet our inclusion criteria of reporting on primary data. The second document was removed as it was a published study protocol for a future investigation of YIM. In the end, we were left with 9 peer-reviewed articles for review and discussion.

4. Section 2: Findings from the Scoping Review

To date, nine peer-reviewed articles have explored the benefits of YIM [13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21]. It is important to note that our review identified other studies exploring the benefits of giving youth voice and choice during the mentor nomination process. Two notable examples include Dr. Johanna Greeson’s scholarship on the C.A.R.E. intervention, and scholarship on the Connected Scholars program by Drs. Kanchewa, Kupersmidt, Rhodes and Schwartz. This review focused solely on studies using the exact term “Youth-Initiated Mentoring” in the context of youth mentoring. For those interested, some scholars have published a broader meta-analysis of studies adopting YIM and other related approaches to mentor recruitment and nomination [11].

Table 1. Characteristic of Previous Studies on YIM.

Reference and Country of Origin	Research Context	Aim of Study	Participants	Methods	Design	Data Type	Analysis
Koper et al. (2021); Netherlands; [13]	YIM as an alternative to out-of-home care	Document what youth and parents look for in their mentors and what mentors believe they offer to families.	Youth (N = 15) (13–18 years of age) (M = 15.67, SD = 1.70) Mentors (N = 8) (22–69 years of age) (M = 41.30, SD = 17.15) Parents (N = 13) (36–50 years of age) (M = 43.76, SD = 4.64)	Qualitative	Exploratory	Interviews	Thematic Analysis
Schwartz et al. 2013; United States; [14]	Educational Residential Program	Explore the benefits of YIM for youth participating in an intensive residential intervention program.	Youth (N = 1,173) (16–18 years of age)	Mixed	Explanatory	Follow-up surveys; Retrospective interviews (n = 30)	Ordinary least square regression, Thematic Analysis
Spencer et al. (2018); United States; [15]	Transition from Foster-Care	Examine experiences of YIM relationships among youth transitioning out of the foster care system.	Youth (N = 12) (16–25 years of age) (M = 19.17, SD = 2.59) Mentors (N = 9) (21–56 years of age) (M = 34.78, SD = 10.15)	Qualitative	Case-Study	In-depth semi-structured interviews	Thematic Analysis
Spencer et al. (2021); United States; [16]	Mentoring Organizational Level	Explore staff motivation to implement YIM and identify facilitators and barriers to success.	Mentoring Program Staff (N = 11) (26–47 years of age) (M = 32.10, SD = 7.58)	Qualitative	Case Study	In-depth semi-structured interviews	Thematic Analysi
Spencer et al. (2018); United States; [17]	Transition from Foster-Care	Examine the formation of YIM relationships and how they are experienced by youth, mentors, and parents.	Youth (N = 17) (15–25 years of age) (M = 18.38, SD = 2.70) Mentors (N = 14) (21–58 years of age) (M = 38.00, SD = 10.71) Parents (N = 6) (29–47 years of age) (M = 37.83, SD = 6.74)	Qualitative	Case Study	In-depth interviews	Thematic Analysis
Spencer et al. (2016); United States; [18]	Educational Residential Program	Explore the mentor selection process, role of YIM relationships, and their impact.	Youth (N = 30) (20–23 years of age)	Qualitative	Explanatory	Retrospective interviews	Thematic Analysis
van Dam et al. (2017); Netherlands; [19]	Outpatient Care	Examine whether YIM offers a promising alternative to out-of-home-care.	Youth (N = 96) (11–19 years of age) (M = 15.40, SD = 1.81)	Quantitative	Case Study	Standardized survey	Case-file analyses; Chi-square analysis
van Dam et al. (2019); Netherlands; [20]	YIM as alternative to out-of-home care	Explore the mentor-nomination process and sustainability.	Youth (N = 6) (15–18 years of age) (M = 16.30, SD = 1.21) Mentors (N = 6) (28–55 years of age) (M = 41.80, SD = 9.30) Parents (N = 7) (42–62 years of age) (M = 51.30, SD = 6.00)	Qualitative	Explanatory	Semi-structured interviews	Thematic Analysis
van Dam et al. (2021); Netherlands; [21]	YIM as alternative to out-of-home care	Examine the long-term impact of YIM relationships.	Mentors (N = 24) (23–78 years of age) (M = 50.00, SD = 13.70)	Qualitative	Case-Study	Semi-structured interviews	Inductive, Axial, and Selective Coding

summarizes the characteristics of the nine peer-reviewed studies identified in our review. The main findings from each of these studies are synthesized below in terms of the mentor nomination processes, nature and quality of YIM relationships, relationship closure, and youth outcomes.

4.1. Mentor Nomination Process

The hallmark of YIM is offering youth voice and choice during the mentor nomination process. To date, several main findings have emerged as a result of this unique feature. First, in large part, youth appreciate the opportunity to nominate their own mentor, rather than having a mentor assigned to them [15,17,20]. Based on these findings, scholars have suggested that YIM may be a more developmentally appropriate alternative to working with young people, who often desire more autonomy and agency in their lives [14,17]. Mentoring practitioners have also reported that giving youth voice and choice during the mentor nomination process is highly appealing and one of the main reasons they adopted YIM [16]. Despite these positive outcomes, some research indicates that some youth feel “cautious” and “hesitant” about the opportunity to nominate their own mentor [16,20] (p. 10). For these youth, the idea of nominating a mentor feels like a “scary thing to ask” [20] (p. 10). In some cases, these hesitant feelings create barriers to participation in YIM programs. For example, some families will decide not to participate due to a belief that they do not have any natural mentors in their social network [16]. Research has also discovered that YIM requires mentoring programs to significantly alter their recruitment strategy (for instance, locating and recruiting adults nominated by youth), which can sometimes be time-consuming [16].

Studies find that, during the mentor nomination process, the majority of young people can identify at least one supportive adult in their existing social network [18,20]. According to some scholars, these findings indicate that a complete absence of natural mentors is less likely than youth not having the required knowledge, skills, and confidence to contact these adults on their own to formalize their pre-existing relationships [18]. In support of this, mentoring practitioners have been found to value and appreciate YIM for its potential to empower young people to find their own mentors, especially for those who have experienced difficulty being matched with a mentor [17]. In contrast, some research has discovered that some youth and their parents experience challenges while attempting to identify potential mentors in their community [16].

While selecting their mentors, youth tend to choose professionals with whom they have had previous contact, such as teachers, coaches, and social workers, or adults who are closely connected to their families, such as extended family members, neighbours, and family friends [14,15,17,18,20]. While selecting their mentors, the majority of youth also nominate adults with similar cultural, ethnic, and/or racial backgrounds as themselves [14,15,17,18]. These results are similar to current research on natural mentoring relationships, which indicates that young people tend to gravitate towards and look-up to role models who share similar backgrounds and life circumstances as themselves [22]. While selecting their mentors, some research also indicates that youth and their parents tend to look for adults with whom they have a strong connection, and who are trustworthy, sensitive to their needs, disciplined, and future-oriented [13]. Findings are mixed as to whether involving primary caregivers in the mentor-nomination process offers benefits to youth and their mentoring relationships. Some research indicates that inviting young people to nominate a mentor “mostly on their own” can lead to more enduring relationships [14] (p. 166). Other research indicates that involving primary caregivers in the nomination process can increase their investment and commitment to their child’s mentoring relationship [17,20]. Finally, some research indicates that when primary caregivers and youth disagree on who they should nominate as their mentor, tension can arise between youth, parents, and the nominated mentor [15,20].

4.2. Nature and Quality of YIM Relationships

Inviting young people to nominate their own mentor shapes the nature and quality of their relationships in various ways. First, by helping youth formalize a pre-existing relationship with a supportive adult, YIM ensures that a positive relational history already exists between mentors and mentees. Grounded in this positive history, research indicates mentors and mentees are able to quickly develop feelings of closeness and trust with one another and expedite the development of their relationship [15,16,17,18]. For example, after being directly nominated by a young person who recognizes and appreciates their support, some mentors report entering their relationships with more confidence, commitment, and purpose [16,17,20]. Similarly, based on their previous experiences with their mentor, youth reported immediate feelings of trust and a willingness to receive support and guidance in their relationships [14,16,17,18]. Other research indicates that some adults respond more cautiously—stating a need for more information before accepting the nomination [20]. Still other research indicates that some adults implicitly deny the request to be a mentor by not returning communication attempts by mentoring practitioners [16].

Over the course of their ensuing relationships, studies indicate mentors provide their mentees with three basic forms of support [14,17,18,20,21]: social-emotional support (for example, offering companionship and friendship), informational support (for example, offering guidance and advice) and instrumental support (for example, offering support finding a job). Current research also indicates that the shared cultural and demographic backgrounds between mentors and mentees helped facilitate higher-quality forms of support. For example, within these broad categories of support, youth often reported that their mentors provided them with advice and guidance that was specifically attuned to their demographic and cultural circumstances [13,15,17,18]. In other words, youth felt as though their mentors were able to deepen the quality of their relationships by infusing their social and cultural knowledge into their discussions and activities, something a mentor from another community might struggle to accomplish.

Some mentoring practitioners report these strong mentor-mentee connections make it difficult to engage families and mentors in on-going match support activities [16]. For these practitioners, they report feeling that mentors may feel the support is unnecessary as they are already familiar with the youth, their challenges, and how to successfully navigate them [16]. On balance, practitioners seem to think the traditional schedule and frequency of match-support conversations can be reduced for YIM relationships [16].

Finally, research indicates that YIM relationships can be quite durable and enduring. For example, in one study, three-years after initiating their relationship, the majority of mentors and mentees were still in contact with one another [14]. In other studies, mentors and mentees report hoping their relationships will continue and plan for them to continue for a long time [15,16,17,18,20,21]. Similar to natural mentoring relationships, these results suggest that adults embedded in young people’s communities may serve as a more enduring and sustainable source of mentorship, compared to adults from other neighbourhoods [14].

4.3. Relationship Closure

Only one peer-reviewed study provided data on the closure process of YIM relationships [16]. In this study, the majority of participating mentoring practitioners reported that YIM relationships rarely end prematurely [16]. In their experience, young people participating in YIM relationships “don’t want it to end” and often “become a lifetime mentoring match” outside of the formal structure of the mentoring organization [16] (p. 9).

4.4. Youth Outcomes

Research indicates that YIM relationships can positively impact young people in multiple ways. First, by providing social and emotional support over the course of their relationship, mentors can help youth improve their psychological well-being (for example, self-esteem, confidence, beliefs about the future) [14,15,18,19,20,21]. Mentors have also been shown to help youth improve their relationships with others by offering social and emotional support [14,15,18,20]. Secondly, by offering informational and instrumental support, mentors can help youth work towards and achieve their educational [14,15,20] and occupational goals [14,15,18,20]. Finally, in cases where YIM has been embedded within other programs for youth who are “at-risk,” research indicates that mentors can successfully collaborate with professionals and other family members to help youth transition back into their communities and adjust to independent living [15,17,19].

5. Section 3: Community-Based Participatory Research

As an emerging mentoring model, YIM encourages the field of mentoring to adopt a more participatory approach to practice. Based on our current understanding, collaborating with youth during the mentor nomination process offers several benefits to youth and their mentoring relationships. Our scoping review discovered an opportunity to advance and enrich our understanding of YIM using more participatory approaches to research. For the most part, scholars are conducting their research in a top-down manner, using standardized measures and interview protocols that may not be applicable or meaningful to community members and their particular social and cultural contexts. Although these existing studies have provided valuable knowledge, as researchers, we should also be responsible for ensuring our studies embrace the strengths of communities and offer opportunities for participation. CBPR can help researchers achieve this shift.

6. Community-Based Participatory Research

CBPR is a collaborative approach to conducting research that seeks to co-construct knowledge and action with local community members [22]. To date, CBPR has been successfully conducted using a diverse array of research designs and methods [23]. This methodological diversity reinforces the idea that CBPR is not a methodology, but rather an approach to conducting research [22,24,25]. More succinctly, what is distinct about CBPR is not the specific research tools or procedures that academics use, but rather the spirit or attitude that they adopt during their investigations. Rather than viewing the research process as an opportunity to extract data from others, scholars who conduct CBPR view research as an opportunity to co-construct knowledge with community members [24,25]. Adopting the firm belief that community members are experts in their own lives and communities, CBPR encourages researchers to position themselves as co-learners and diversify the composition of their research team to also include community members [22,23]. Acting as co-researchers, community members are then invited to apply their local knowledge and expertise throughout the entire research process; which is believed to ultimately contribute to a more relevant, meaningful, and ecologically valid understanding of the research topic [25].

6.1. Benefits of CBPR

CBPR’s commitment to co-constructing knowledge with community members has been shown to offer various benefits. In a commonly cited study, Balazs & Morello-Frosch (2013) outline how CBPR can support “the three R’s of science”—relevance, rigour, and reach [26] (p. 1). Relevance refers to whether research is asking the right questions and focusing on the right problems [26]. For example, by partnering closely with community members, research projects are more likely to focus on the problems that are relevant to the community, rather than the identified gaps in the academic literature [22]. CBPR can also strengthen the academic rigour of a research study by inviting community members to help co-design the study and collect and interpret the data [25]. For example, CBPR often invites community members to help develop, pilot, and revise research measures, which has been shown to help improve their psychometric properties [27,28]. Research also indicates that community members can increase the overall validity and trustworthiness of identified themes and outcomes by ensuring they are accurate and sensitive to their unique social and cultural contexts [23,26]. Finally, CBPR can enhance the reach of a study by increasing the likelihood that results will be accessible to diverse audiences and useful for action and mobilization in the community [26]. In other words, since the knowledge generated from CBPR projects is culturally and contextually grounded in the lives of community members, results are more readily translated into action than knowledge generated solely by academic researchers [23]. Taken together, by broadening and deepening the research team to include community members, CBPR can help advance “the three R’s” by attuning research to the relevant issues and concerns of communities, strengthening the quality of research findings, and expanding the reach and application of results.

6.2. Considerations and Challenges of CBPR

Although CBPR offers many benefits, there are also some challenges. Fortunately, scholarship in this area proposes some solutions that may be helpful for future investigations of YIM.

As an epistemological choice, CBPR is closely aligned with more interpretive, critical, and constructivist perspectives [29,30]. As such, researchers may need to consider their epistemological positions before inviting community members to co-construct knowledge and meaning during their investigations. Researchers also need to consider the fundamental purpose of their investigations and what they hope to accomplish with their research findings. A key strength of CBPR is exploring the local knowledge and expertise of community members and generating results that are deeply sensitive to particular social and cultural contexts [24,25]. As such, CBPR might not be the most conducive choice for researchers aiming to generate results that can be widely generalized to other research contexts without deeply considering the new social and cultural characteristics [24].

Another common challenge to conducting CBPR is the significant amount of time that these projects require. As a more democratic and inclusive approach to research, CBPR requires researchers to spend a significant amount of time developing and maintaining relationships with community members [23,31]. Researchers who have conducted CBPR projects often reflect that they had not adequately planned for the amount of time it would take to successfully develop partnerships with community members [31]. In general, researchers often hoped for more time to develop trust with community members, clarify roles and expectations, determine research goals, and organize group processes and structures [31]. Researchers have also reflected that CBPR projects can place time constraints on their ability to publish academic papers—requiring them to publish more process-oriented papers that document their respective partnership-building process and lessons-learned [23]. In addition to these publishing pressures, researchers can experience certain pressures from community members and organizations during the latter part of their projects, as they become eager to apply the main findings and key lessons and, perhaps, secure further funding [31].

Researchers may also experience various interpersonal challenges while conducting CBPR with community members. For instance, some researchers have reflected that they experienced various tensions during their projects because they disagreed with community members and their respective decisions [31]. Reflecting on these situations, these researchers learned that CBPR often requires scholars to dissolve their control over the research process and become comfortable with a more flexible and fluid approach to inquiry. Acknowledging these challenges, it is often recommended that researchers draft “terms of reference” or a “memorandum of understanding” prior to conducting their research. These documents are useful as they offer formal opportunities for researchers and community members to negotiate and discuss how they will make decisions, navigate disagreements in a respectful manner, and come to an agreement on the general vision and purpose of the research project [31].

A final challenge that researchers have encountered while conducting CBPR projects is a lack of sustainability of research findings. In general, many researchers have reflected that their partnerships gradually dissolved after they collected and analyzed their data with community members [31]. As funding for their projects evaporated, these researchers noted that they lacked the necessary funds to meaningfully honour co-researchers for their continued participation beyond data collection and analyses. To address these challenges, researchers have recommended establishing clear guidelines and strategies for ensuring research findings are translated and mobilized into sustainable forms of action [31].

CBPR also raises various ethical issues that researchers need to consider in order to protect their co-researchers [32]. For instance, the iterative nature of CBPR can pose challenges to gaining and retaining informed consent from all participants [32]. Researchers can address this challenge by ensuring the ongoing consent of each co-researcher throughout the entire research process [32]. The participatory nature of CBPR may also pose threats to co-researcher’s confidentiality and anonymity amongst the other co-researchers [32]. For example, while analyzing research findings as a community of learners, it may be difficult to successfully untangle an individual’s identity from the de-identified data set [32]. In other words, since co-researchers often spend a significant amount of time with one another, they may be able to identify one another’s experiences, excerpts, or pieces of data while analyzing their collective data set as a group. Researchers can address this challenge by inviting co-researchers to decide which data they would like to analyze on their own, and which experiences they would like to share and explore with their fellow co-researchers. Finally, under certain circumstances, CBPR may also interfere with a co-researcher’s right to beneficence [32]. For instance, while disseminating research findings to the local community, researchers may inadvertently share information that could damage a particular co-researcher’s reputation and relationship with their community [32]. Researchers can address this challenge by identifying mutually agreed upon dissemination strategies and negotiating which aspects of the data set will be shared with the broader community [32].

Of further relevance for future investigations of YIM, a collection of scholars have described some considerations researchers need to acknowledge while conducting CBPR with youth [33]. This review focused on helping researchers understand the developmental needs and capacities of youth and how they may influence a CBPR research project. Three important considerations were highlighted.

First, the authors reminded researchers that adolescence is a time of rapid biological, social and emotional, and cognitive growth. For example, some young people may still be developing and refining their verbal, written, cognitive, and social skills. As such, researchers may encounter youth with varying degrees of competencies, strengths, and skills. Rather than conceptualizing this as a challenge, the authors simply recommend that researchers remain mindful of adolescent’s developmental needs and capacities while designing their studies and inviting youth to perform certain activities [33].

As their second consideration, the authors point out that adolescents may have limited control over their schedules and may have significant constraints on the amount of time they can commit to a CBPR project. Adolescents may not be able to meet with researchers and perform research activities during certain periods of the day and week. Researchers need to be ever mindful and respectful of young people’s commitments throughout their studies [33].

Finally, as their third consideration, the authors remind researchers that adolescents may have limited decision-making experience. Drawing on their experience, the authors highlight that adults often feel concerned that they will influence young people and their decisions because of their higher education, experience, training, and communication skills. Although the authors have not experienced this, they do remind researchers to consider the potential power differentials between them and their fellow youth co-researchers while conducting research together [33]. In sum, careful consideration is required before conducting CBPR with adolescents and their communities.

7. Section 4: Using CBPR to Advance and Mobilize Knowledge about YIM

This section initiates a constructive dialogue between YIM and CBPR and explores how a selection of CBPR’s core principles can help researchers deepen their future investigations of YIM. This section focuses on the following core principles:

• CBPR aims to build collaborative and equitable research partnerships.
• CBPR promotes co-learning and capacity-building among all partners and acknowledges and builds on the strengths and resources within communities.
• CBPR is guided by an ecological and multideterminant perspective.
• CBPR strives to create relevant, sustainable, and positive change for communities.

As flexible touchstones for conducting research with communities, each CBPR project may be grounded in any combination of guiding principles [22,25,34]. These principles were chosen for this article as they were recently composed by a diverse set of scholars, some of whom are notable figures in the CBPR field. For example, this set of principles includes perspectives from the field of psychology (Collins), social work (Gil-Kashiwabara), nursing (Nelson), public health (Wallerstein), and Latinx (Espinosa & Straits) and Indigenous studies (Duran & Straits). Each principle will now be reviewed.

8. Principle #1: CBPR Aims to Build Collaborative and Equitable Research Partnerships

The starting point for any CBPR project involves establishing a meaningful and collaborative relationship with research participants and their community [25]. Historically, research involving community members, especially those from more marginalized communities, has not always invited them to participate in the research process [22]. This non-participatory approach to research is often referred to as helicopter-research—wherein researchers fly-into communities, collect their data, and then fly-out without sharing their findings with community members [35]. In contrast to helicopter-research, CBPR seeks to invite community members to fully participate in the research process, voice their opinions and deeply-rooted values, and make important decisions before, during, and after the study [25]. To establish a collaborative and equitable approach to research, researchers need to create an environment where community members feel safe and comfortable to make important decisions [22,25,34].

CBPR Principle #1 and YIM: Potential Applications and Benefits

To a large extent, existing studies on YIM have lacked an emphasis on meaningful collaboration and partnership. To date, scholars have largely been the ones in charge of identifying the problems, generating the research questions, deciding upon data collection methods, and analyzing and interpreting the significance of YIM. Furthermore, with the exception of three studies [13,17,20], primary caregivers have also been excluded from existing investigations of YIM. Two ideas for adopting a more collaborative approach to research are offered below.

Establish a Community Advisory Board. In the CBPR literature, a key strategy for building collaborative and equitable relationships is to establish a Community Advisory Board (CAB). CAB’s provide structured opportunities for researchers and community members to co-construct research projects as a team [25,36]. Before a study begins, CAB meetings can be a good opportunity to outline the roles and responsibilities of each partner. Examples of the kinds of roles and responsibilities that may be discussed include: who will be involved in the study, how the data will be collected and by whom, how the data will be analyzed, and how the data will be disseminated to non-academic audiences. CAB’s should seek to achieve consensus from the entire group while making decisions [36]. Once a study has begun, CAB meetings can also provide an opportunity for ongoing dialogue between researchers and community members. If done correctly, establishing a CAB can help researchers develop collaborative and equitable relationships with community members throughout the entire research process [35].

Establishing a CAB might be a good starting point for researchers looking to adopt a more participatory approach to their future investigations of YIM. Mentoring programs are typically targeted towards young people who are “at-risk” and live in marginalized communities [4,5]. To date, studies on YIM have also involved youth who were experiencing various educational, psychosocial, and familial challenges. While working with these vulnerable populations, researchers need to recognize and challenge their various sources of power so that equitable and respectful relationships can develop. Providing structured opportunities for young people to voice their opinions and make important decisions throughout the entire research process might help researchers establish more collaborative relationships with these vulnerable populations in the future.

Practice Cultural Humility. Another key strategy for helping researchers establish equitable and collaborative relationships with community members is to cultivate a sense of cultural humility [24,37]. Cultural humility involves having an accurate and authentic view of oneself, remaining open and interested in the beliefs of others, and not assuming one’s culture, knowledge, or skills are superior to others [37]. Practicing cultural humility often begins by engaging in deep forms of self-reflection and identifying the various assumptions or biases that one may hold towards other cultures and belief systems [37]. Recognizing that CBPR projects typically involve relationships with marginalized communities, researchers can also practice cultural humility by reflecting on their own sources of privilege and power (for example, socioeconomic, educational, racial, and so on). In short, cultural humility involves a commitment to lifelong learning and remaining open and compassionate to the heritage, beliefs, and cultures of each unique human being that we encounter in our daily lives.

Given the culturally diverse nature of YIM relationships to date, cultivating a sense of cultural humility and remaining open and compassionate to the beliefs and perspectives of others might help researchers establish equitable and collaborative relationships, while also deepening the quality of their research. For instance, adopting an attitude that celebrates and honours the cultural knowledge of others might help researchers design their studies in ways that are flexible enough to surface the diverse characteristics of each relationship and how they contribute to positive outcomes, in their own unique way. As an emerging area of research, YIM offers academics a unique opportunity to relinquish their expertise and become comfortable with not knowing. As we investigate this more community-oriented approach to mentoring, we may need to adopt an attitude that celebrates and honours the cultural beliefs and perspectives of each community member.

9. Principle #2: CBPR Builds on the Strengths and Resources within Communities and Promotes Co-Learning and Capacity-Building among All Partners

Foundational to any CBPR project is the recognition of existing strengths and resources within the community [25]. Existing strengths may include, but are not limited to, the specific knowledge and skills of community members, existing social networks and support systems, and existing community-based organizations [35]. Historically, community-based research often adopted a damage-based approach while interacting with local community members [38]. As self-proclaimed “experts” in their respective fields, researchers often viewed community members as clients, who were dependent on their external knowledge and skills to overcome their own challenges [38]. Relating to community members in this fashion creates a hierarchical relationship that devalues the knowledge and skills of community members [39].

In contrast, CBPR emphasizes the endogenous strengths of community members and their ability to act as experts in their own lives and communities [25]. CBPR adopts a strengths-based approach by ensuring research environments promote co-learning and capacity-building between academics and community members [34]. Co-learning involves the reciprocal exchange of information and expertise between community members and researchers [22,25]. As an epistemological choice, a commitment to co-learning invites community members to co-construct knowledge during the research process and contribute their valuable insights, experiences, and perspectives [39]. In addition to applying their current knowledge and skills during the research process, CBPR also looks for opportunities to build new capacities among all co-researchers. In this respect, CBPR is often characterized as an orientation to research and as a tool for positive human development [22]. In other words, the participatory nature of CBPR extends the purpose of research beyond the mere generation of knowledge to also include opportunities for participants to develop new skills, knowledge, and self-beliefs.

Principle #2 and YIM: Potential Applications and Benefits

Similar to CBPR, YIM was designed to help researchers and practitioners celebrate and build upon the existing strengths of young people and their communities [8]. YIM’s unique feature of inviting youth to nominate and select their own mentor is grounded in the firm belief that communities have the capacity to mentor their own young people; and that young people themselves have the capacity to strengthen their own social networks [8]. Based on our current understanding, inviting youth to nominate their own mentors offers various benefits to youth and their mentoring relationships. To date, however, current research has missed the opportunity to continue building upon the knowledge and skills of young people beyond the mentor nomination stage. CBPR can help researchers continue building upon the endogenous strengths of young people an their communities by positioning them as co-researchers and producers of knowledge.

Support Capacity-Building. As an alternative approach to traditional mentoring practice, YIM currently provides a niche for young people to experience more autonomy during their mentoring experience. In this more participatory space, a core focus is helping young people build their own capacity to strengthen their existing relationships and opportunities for mentorship [8]. To help complement this focus on capacity-building, academics should also be responsible for ensuring their investigations of YIM include opportunities for participants to develop new skills, knowledge, and self-beliefs. Positioning young people as co-researchers might help academics achieve this goal and extend the participatory nature of YIM.

Recent systematic reviews indicate that inviting young people to participate as co-researchers can help them build important developmental capacities across three broad categories: cognitive, social and emotional, and educational/occupational [23,40,41,42]. For example, by participating in the research process, young people can gain important cognitive skills, such as thinking critically about various issues, learning to solve complex and multifaceted problems, and making important decisions that produce meaningful outcomes [42]. Being invited to participate in an academic study can also increase young people’s internal feelings of self-efficacy, leadership, and confidence [41]. Furthermore, by interacting with other co-researchers in an interpersonal setting, youth can also develop essential social and emotional capacities, such as intergenerational communication, teamwork, and conflict resolution skills [42]. Finally, young people can also develop critical educational and occupational skills, such as setting realistic and measurable goals, efficiently managing their time, and learning to communicate effectively with diverse others in a professional environment [41]. In sum, future investigations of YIM might look to extend the participatory nature of YIM and invite young people to participate as co-researchers. Key to including young people as co-researchers is balancing their opportunities for participation with the extent to which they want to engage in the research process [43]. Recognizing the power differentials that may exist in their relationships with young people, researchers need to be cautious while inviting youth to take on research responsibilities. CBPR’s commitment to capacity-building does not hold young people responsible for managing the entire research process [24].

Future investigations of YIM might also look to build the capacity of mentoring practitioners and their respective community-based organizations. As a non-traditional mentoring model, inviting practitioners to deepen their knowledge of YIM might help convince them of its merits, and build their capacity to sustainably implement the model in the future. Research indicates that inviting practitioners to participate as co-researchers offers two main benefits. First, by working closely with young people as fellow co-researchers, practitioners can become more respectful of young people’s experiences and sensitive to their values and needs [42,44]. In other words, creating an environment that encourages practitioners and young people to learn together (as equal partners), can help practitioners shift their attitudes to be more youth-friendly and inclusive. As a mentoring model that emphasizes youth-participation, helping mentoring programs infuse their organizational cultures with more participatory values might be critical to sustaining the implementation of YIM. Secondly, research indicates that inviting practitioners to participate in the research process can build their capacity to redesign their pre-existing programs to become better suited to the needs of young people [42,44]. Building practitioners’ capacities to redesign their existing mentoring models could help them transition to more community-based mentoring options, such as YIM.

Commit to Co-Learning. As previously stated, CBPR encourages researchers to build on the strengths of communities by acting as co-learners with community members during their investigations [25]. Current investigations of YIM have yet to fully embrace a commitment to co-learning. To date, researchers have primarily conducted their research in a top-down manner using standardized questionnaires or interview questions designed by the researcher. While these research tools may be familiar and valued within academia, they may feel foreign, confusing, and impractical to young people and other community members [23,43]. These traditional research tools also treat youth as passive sources of data, rather than active constructors of data [23]. A key strategy for supporting CBPR’s commitment to co-learning is being open and receptive to more inclusive, creative, and culturally-informed research tools [22]. In other words, researchers need to recognize that community members may have other ways of knowing that lie outside of what is typically considered scientific evidence or knowledge in the academy [22,25].

In the spirit of co-learning, future investigations of YIM might invite young people to select research tools that celebrate their existing strengths and allow them to construct knowledge in their own unique way. Inviting youth to select their own research tools, based on their individual strengths, cultures, and social situations requires researchers to reposition themselves as co-learners and commit to treating youth as experts in their own lives [23]. As Coyne and Carter (2018) discuss, researchers who partner with young people need to be prepared to “step into another world” and commit to co-discovering the richness of each young person’s age-related culture and experiences [43] (p. 2). To accomplish this going forward, researchers could create a menu of research tools that young people could pick and choose from on their own. Within this menu, researchers might celebrate youth’s technological fluency and invite them to express themselves using video diaries, photo journals, voice memos, blog posts, and/or podcast episodes. Researchers might also celebrate young people’s more artistic forms of expression and invite them to express themselves through song-writing, poetry, collage-making, and/or painting and drawing. As open and flexible menu items, these research tools could create the opportunity for young people to “tell their stories” in multi-sensory ways and infuse the research process with their own voices, personalities, and cultures.

It is important to note that an emphasis on youth-friendly research tools does not exclude adults from the research process or devalue their voices [43,45]. Co-learning is a commitment to co-constructing knowledge and shared understandings through sustained interactions between all co-researchers [25]. The intention of bringing together traditional and more creative methods is to maximize young people’s engagement and provide a bridge for them to communicate more effectively with adults [43]. This means that researchers can still use their traditional research methods, as long as they are presented in the spirit of co-learning. For example, before inviting youth to select their own measures, researchers can identify various measures that might be useful for their own research purposes. Researchers can then present youth with these options and come to a mutual decision on which measures will remain constant across all participants. Depending on sample size, researchers can then use these measures to analyze the collective experiences of all participants and/or triangulate them with the tools that a particular young person selected to co-construct a rich case-study of a single mentoring relationship. Ultimately, this multi-method approach might help researchers commit to co-learning by inviting young people to use research tools that celebrate their existing strengths and preferences, while also maintaining a sense of consistency and reliability in their data collection procedures. In sum, by committing to the principles of capacity-building and co-learning, researchers may be able to create research environments that allow young people to develop new mindsets, skills, and knowledge.

10. Principle #3: CBPR Is Guided by an Ecological and Multideterminant Perspective

Research conducted on individuals from marginalized communities has historically conceptualized human development in an individualistic manner [25,39]. Within these traditional approaches to research and practice, professionals have largely focused on understanding and treating the individual, devoid of any social or cultural influence [46]. Grounded in this individualistic approach, research has inadvertently blamed individuals for their poor life outcomes, failing to acknowledge the social and cultural barriers these individuals may face [39]. In contrast to viewing human development in an individualistic manner, CBPR embraces a more multidimensional perspective by acknowledging that individuals are embedded in multiple layers of sociocultural contexts and relationships [22,25]. While conducting CBPR, in order to honour and embrace this multideterminant perspective, researchers actively look to design their projects from an ecological point of view [25]. Rather than focusing entirely on individuals in the community and their various challenges or deficits, CBPR seeks to empower communities to address their own problems, which are seen to be largely shaped by broader economic, political, or educational injustices, rather than any individual deficiencies within the community [25].

Principle #3 and YIM: Potential Applications and Benefits

For decades, scholars have sought to understand the impact of mentoring relationships by focusing their attention solely on the experiences of mentors and mentees [8]. As a result of this narrow focus, primary caregivers and other adults in the lives of young people have largely been excluded from the existing research base on youth mentoring [8,47]. Furthermore, on the rare occasion that researchers have included families in the research process, they are often treated as either an inconsequential or “risky backdrop” to the mentoring relationship [8,47]. Some scholars have suggested that this relatively narrow focus on the mentor-mentee dyad may be a contributing factor to the field’s somewhat limited impact [8]. In part, YIM was developed as a more community-oriented approach to help overcome this limitation and broaden and deepen the impact of mentoring [8]. This purpose is still being pursued, however, as primary caregivers and other supportive adults have been excluded from several of the existing investigations of YIM. Three ideas for adopting a more ecological approach to future investigations of YIM are offered below.

Celebrate Primary Caregivers. To overcome the above limitations, we need research that challenges the notion that primary caregivers are a “risky backdrop” to mentoring relationships. As a starting point, researchers might shift their focus to a more ecological level while conceptualizing their studies and describing their problem definitions [39]. Thinking in more ecological and multideterminant terms may help researchers recognize that the challenges faced by young people who are “at-risk” actually stem from multiple contexts, several of which are external to their familial and community environments [47]. For example, research indicates that primary caregivers and other family members seek out mentors for a variety of reasons, most of which do not stem from perceptions of an inadequate family environment [47,48,49]. Shifting their perspective to a more ecological level may ultimately help researchers celebrate the existing strengths of families and communities [8].

Involve Primary Caregivers as Co-Researchers. To date, primary caregivers have largely served as an untapped source of knowledge and expertise during investigations of YIM. Despite this, three studies have invited primary caregivers to describe their experiences with YIM [13,17,20]. In these studies, researchers found that involving primary caregivers in the mentor nomination process increased their commitment to the ensuing mentoring relationship between their child and their nominated mentor [13,17,20]. These findings are encouraging and suggest that involving primary caregivers in the mentor-nomination process can offer benefits to YIM. To date, however, no existing study has invited primary caregivers to participate in the research process as co-researchers (for example, by inviting them to help design the study, influence what data is collected, and how the data is analyzed and shared with others). As astute observers of their child’s development, primary caregivers might help us deepen our understanding of YIM relationships and how they influence mentee’s over time. For example, primary caregivers may be able to notice subtle changes in their children that may go unnoticed by researchers, mentors, and even mentees themselves. In sum, positioning primary caregivers as co-researchers might advance our understanding of YIM and address our current need for a more nuanced understanding of what occurs during these relationships and how they impact mentees over time.

Broaden and Diversify Co-Researcher Teams. Diversifying the composition of co-researchers might also serve as a useful strategy for embracing a more ecological approach to future investigations of YIM [25]. Positioning a more diverse array of community members as co-researchers might uncover how YIM relationships impact youth across various developmental contexts. For example, similar to primary caregivers, teachers can also be discerning and insightful observers of their student’s development. Teachers also have the unique advantage of interacting with their students on a regular basis, providing scholars an opportunity to learn from a caring adult who spends a great deal of time interacting with “the mentee”. Teachers are just one example. Scholars might also invite coaches, music and dance teachers, employers, social workers, tutors, and even older siblings to participate as co-researchers. The ultimate goal should be to send an open invitation to as many caring adults who regularly interact with the mentee. Inviting a diverse array of adults to participate as co-researchers might help scholars uncover the transfer effects of YIM and how these relationships benefit young people across various developmental contexts.

11. Principle #4: CBPR Strives to Create Relevant, Sustainable, and Positive Change for Communities

Historical approaches to analyzing and disseminating data have left little room for community participation [22]. Trained to prioritize knowledge from highly controlled, neutral, and objective environments, researchers have historically sought to isolate themselves from their research contexts while analyzing their data [35]. Acting independently, researchers have then attempted to remove the noise that community members bring to the research process and remove any opportunity for them to bias their findings [35]. Incentivized by their academic institutions to either publish or perish, academics have then published their research in peer-reviewed journals that often require financial subscriptions to access. Sitting behind paywalls, these publications make it very difficult for community members to learn from the knowledge that they helped produce. In essence, without any effort to involve community members in the analysis and dissemination of their own data, academics significantly decrease the likelihood that their research will contribute to sustainable changes, let alone any change at all.

In contrast, CBPR aims to produce results that are relevant, accessible, and capable of informing sustainable changes within communities [25]. A fundamental component of CBPR is analyzing research findings with community members and engaging them in the dissemination process [25]. Rooted in the principles of action research, the goal of CBPR is to help community members achieve lasting change in their communities that endure beyond the timeline of any research project [22]. CBPR firmly believes that inviting community members to analyze and disseminate their own research findings can contribute to more relevant and sustainable change [23,35]. During data analysis, rather than viewing community members as undesirable sources of noise, CBPR seeks to amplify their voices and embrace the tranquility and stillness of their local expertise. In other words, community members are thought to bring clarity and focus to the interpretation of research findings and reduce the chatter of academic theory and outside perspectives that may not be applicable or sensitive to their unique sociocultural circumstances. CBPR also encourages researchers to develop dissemination strategies with community members to ensure the broader accessibility and uptake of research findings [25].

Principle #4 and YIM: Potential Applications and Benefits

For the most part, previous research on YIM has not invited participants to analyze and disseminate their own research findings. Analyzing data without including community members decreases the trustworthiness of researcher’s interpretations and leaves little room for community members to make sense and meaning of the results they co-constructed [23,50]. Similarly, without translating research findings beyond academic journals, academics have left little room for communities to learn from the results that they helped produce. This is concerning as YIM seems to offer a viable alternative to formal youth mentoring programs—suggesting that young people and their communities are more than capable of mentoring themselves. Without any documented effort to translate and mobilize research findings to non-academic audiences, however, families and communities are likely to continue relying on volunteers from outside of their communities to support their young people. We recognize that scholars have likely made valuable efforts to disseminate their findings beyond academic journals (for example, during webinars, conferences, newsletters, or discussions with practitioners). Our main point is that, as a field, we might begin spreading our valuable knowledge about YIM to those who are working outside of the more traditional mentoring field (for example, community centres, after-school programs, and other organizations who serve the young people in their community). In addition, we are encouraging increased transparency in peer-reviewed academic articles on how research teams are disseminating their knowledge, so we can begin to build an understanding of successful strategies. Two ideas for inviting community members to analyze and disseminate their own research findings are presented below.

Support Inclusion During Data Analyses. CBPR aims to produce results that are relevant and meaningful to local communities by supporting the inclusion and collaboration of all co-researchers during data analysis [22]. To date, participatory data analysis has been conducted in a variety of ways depending on the research context, design, and preferences of local community members [50,51,52]. The common element across each of these approaches is the creation of an inclusive environment where researchers and community members can progressively build a set of common understandings with one another. Researchers often begin by organizing and synthesizing the raw data themselves before presenting them to community members. After cleaning and organizing the data, researchers can then initiate an open dialogue with community members and invite their impressions, thoughts, and interpretations [52]. Regardless of the methods used to collect the data, the ultimate goal is to create an inclusive process of ongoing dialogue and sense-making between all co-researchers [50]. For example, although some methods may be more inaccessible than others (for example, structural equation modelling), researchers should seek to break-down the components of these more sophisticated analytic techniques to make them more accessible to community members [50]. For instance, academics might use their methodological expertise to present community members with the broad picture, while ultimately relying on their local expertise to fill in the gaps and substantiate the preliminary results with their own unique perspectives, experiences, and cultures. Functioning as a community of learners, the goal is to work through cycles of interpretation and re-interpretation to progressively build a set of common understandings and significance [50].

Future investigations of YIM might benefit from adopting this more participatory approach to data analysis. To date, the closest approximation to including community members in this meaning-making process has been to include brief quotes from their interview transcripts in academic publications. As a starting point, these investigations have made valuable contributions to our understanding of participant’s experiences in YIM. There is room for growth, however, as researchers have often responded to participant’s quotes with their own academically-informed interpretations of significance and meaning. CBPR encourages researchers to avoid this kind of “academic-framing” of participant’s voices by inviting community members to provide their own interpretations of significance and meaning [53] (p. 317). Since our current understanding of YIM has been largely framed by academic voices, our current interpretations may be misleading or even inaccurate [22,23]. As researchers, we should consider avoiding this in the future by inviting community members to determine the significance and meaning of their own experiences. Interpretive Focus Groups [52] and Participatory Theme Elicitation [51] are just two examples of potential ways forward.

Treat Dissemination as Dialogue. As previously stated, CBPR aims to produce sustainable changes in communities by disseminating research findings in ways that can be readily mobilized into action [25]. To date, however, academic publications have served as our main source of knowledge regarding the processes and outcomes of YIM. Furthermore, although these existing studies have generated valuable insights, they have not included any documented effort to translate or mobilize their findings amongst non-academic audiences. Future investigations of YIM should seek to democratize the knowledge they produce and disseminate their findings to non-academic audiences.

Translating research findings to practitioners and their respective community-based organizations might be a good starting point. In a commonly cited study, McDavitt et al. (2016) outline a dissemination strategy that could be used as a potential way forward in this regard [54]. Arguing for “Dissemination as Dialogue,” these scholars reject knowledge dissemination strategies that are passive and unidirectional (for example, newsletters, one-page handouts, policy briefs, lay-summaries) and embrace strategies that facilitate reciprocal dialogue between academics and community members [54]. To exemplify dissemination as dialogue, these scholars facilitated “interactive community presentations” with various community-based organizations that were designed to encourage deeper and more authentic conversations about their research findings [54] (p. 6). McDavitt et al. (2016) discuss two main benefits that arose from these interactive community presentations. First, by initiating reciprocal dialogues with several community-based organizations, the researchers were able to strengthen their existing relationships in the community and develop new possibilities for collaboration [54]. For instance, the community presentations often sparked conversations with practitioners about the potential sociocultural implications of research findings; which eventually led to discussions about how the researchers could collaborate with practitioners to translate the results into culturally-relevant interventions. Hosting interactive community presentations also helped the researchers initiate more immediate action and change in the community [54]. For example, by inviting practitioners to view and discuss their research findings, the community was able to engage in realistic explorations of their results and identify some concrete implications for practice. For instance, after engaging in a rich discussion with the researchers, one community-based organization was able to successfully write a grant proposal to fund a new program in their community. This mobilization of timely and locally-relevant data is at the heart of CBPR.

Future investigations of YIM should treat their own dissemination efforts as opportunities to engage in rich two-way conversations with mentoring practitioners. As we learn more about this emerging mentoring model, disseminating the results of our investigations will be important for several reasons. First, by demonstrating a commitment to sharing their research findings with local community-based organizations, researchers might strengthen their existing relationships with community partners and potentially develop new connections in their community [54]. As a mentoring model that celebrates the strengths and intimate connections of local communities, developing mutual and respectful relationships with mentoring organizations will be critical to supporting future investigations of YIM. Second, by engaging in dialogue with practitioners, researchers can support the mobilization of their research findings into both immediate and more sustainable forms of action [55,56]. For example, sharing research findings with practitioners might help their organizations secure new sources of funding by writing grant proposals that are informed and supported by timely and locally-relevant data. Treating dissemination as dialogue might also help future investigations of YIM enact more sustainable forms of action. For instance, by initiating two-way conversations with a wide range of community-based organizations, researchers may be able to spark conversations about YIM and fertilize ideas for how each organization might tailor their research findings to meet the needs of their unique programs and contexts. Over time, these initial conversations might blossom into opportunities to conduct pilot studies with each of these organizations and support efforts to successfully incorporate YIM as a permanent fixture of their organizational programming. To summarize, future investigations might look to invest in the sustainability of their research findings by treating dissemination as dialogue and initiating two-way conversations with non-academic audiences.

12. Section 5: Key Insights, Considerations, and Conclusions

This section distills the main arguments of this article and discusses how CBPR can help researchers advance our current understanding of YIM and mobilize this knowledge into sustainable forms of action.

Key Insights: Advancing and Mobilizing Knowledge about YIM through CBPR

As an emerging mentoring model, YIM has successfully encouraged the field of mentoring to begin adopting a more community-oriented approach to mentoring [8]. Our scoping reviewed discovered a lack of community participation during investigations of YIM, which has had several consequences on our current understanding of YIM. In response, this article has surfaced several key insights into how CBPR can help researchers address these limitations and deepen their future investigations of YIM.

First and foremost, without any effort to partner with research participants, academics have run the risk of exerting their various sources of power and privilege over young people and their communities [25]. As a starting point, CBPR can help researchers avoid this risk by helping them cultivate a sense of cultural humility and encouraging them to establish more equitable and collaborative relationships with community members [25]. As a more community-oriented mentoring model, YIM was/is designed to draw upon the existing strengths and connections within communities and celebrate their local cultures, customs, and mentoring practices [8]. Practicing cultural humility can help academics shift their mindsets to become better aligned with this purpose by dissolving their status as “mentoring experts” and adopting an attitude that celebrates the cultural beliefs and perspectives of diverse others [37]. This attitudinal shift will be critical to ensuring future investigations of YIM are conceptualized, designed, and conducted in ways that honour the fundamentally inclusive and participatory nature of YIM.

Secondly, by conducting their investigations in a top-down manner, researchers have relied on researcher-driven measures that may not be compatible, useful, or meaningful to the particular social and cultural contexts of community members [23,43]. CBPR’s commitment to co-learning can help researchers address this gap by remaining open and receptive to more creative and culturally-informed research tools [22,25]. Given the intracultural nature of YIM relationships to date, using research tools that encourage community members to co-construct their own forms of knowledge will be vital to developing a more socioculturally sensitive understanding of YIM. As we begin to investigate this more community-oriented approach to mentoring, we may need to complement our traditional research measures with tools that invite community members to show us what happy and satisfying relationships look and feel like to them.

Third, by not positioning community members as co-researchers, previous studies have missed the opportunity to extend the participatory nature of YIM and help community members build new skills, knowledge, and self-beliefs [22,25]. Based on previous research, inviting young people to participate as co-researchers might help them build new capacities during their mentoring experience [23,41,42]. As mentoring experts interested in understanding and supporting the conditions of positive youth development, transforming our investigations into vehicles that nurture key developmental assets can be something that we all strive towards. Furthermore, as a non-traditional mentoring model, inviting practitioners to participate as co-researchers might be especially important for future investigations of YIM. Based on previous research, inviting practitioners to deepen their knowledge of YIM might convince them of its merits and build their capacity to incorporate YIM into their organizational programming [42,44].

Fourth, without involving primary caregivers and other community members to participate as co-researchers, we currently lack a rich ecological understanding of YIM and how these relationships can benefit young people across multiple developmental contexts. Positioning a more diverse array of community members as co-researchers might help researchers address this gap and begin to identify the transfer effects of YIM. In short, we need research that considers the broader constellation of caring adults within a young person’s social network and how they can contribute to a deeper and more ecological understanding of YIM.

Fifth, without inviting community members to analyze and interpret their own data, researchers have missed the opportunity to increase the overall validity and trustworthiness of their research findings [50,51]. By academically-framing participant’s voices, our current understanding of YIM is incomplete and potentially even misleading or inaccurate [23,53]. To address this limitation, we need research that facilitates consensus-building from multiple perspectives [55]. Working as a community of learners, participatory data analysis can help researchers confirm the accuracy of their interpretations while also facilitating deeper insights that have been infused with the unique perspectives and experiences of community members [55,56]. Put simply, participatory data analysis might be critical to developing trustworthy and ecologically-valid interpretations of YIM and its associated significance.

Finally, without any documented efforts to disseminate research findings to non-academic audiences, scholars have missed the opportunity to mobilize their research findings into sustainable forms of action [54]. Without disseminating our results to non-academic audiences, communities are likely to continue relying on adults from outside of their community to provide support and guidance to their young people. Treating dissemination as dialogue can help researchers invest in the sustainability of their research findings by initiating two-way conversations with a diverse set of non-academic audiences (for example, schools, foster homes, community centres, after-school programs, and so on). As a non-traditional approach to mentoring, sharing our knowledge of YIM will be critical to convincing stakeholders of its merits, and helping them transition to this more community-oriented mentoring model.

13. Conclusions

This article performed a scoping review to identify and critically evaluate the current research base of YIM. To date, studies indicate that YIM offers several benefits for mentoring organizations and the communities they serve. The results of our scoping review furthermore resulted in the development of a secondary purpose: to encourage researchers to adopt a more participatory approach to their future investigations of YIM. As researchers, the participatory nature of YIM offers us a unique opportunity to redefine our role as the “mentoring expert” and begin exploring alternative approaches to conducting our investigations. In this more participatory and inclusive space, we might adopt the mindset of co-learners and commit to conducting our research in ways that celebrate the local knowledge and expertise of community members. At this early juncture in YIM’s conceptual and empirical development, CBPR provides a potential roadmap to developing a more contextualized and socioculturally sensitive understanding of YIM. As experts in their own lives, community members already possess the knowledge that we need to advance and mobilize our current understanding of YIM. As a community of learners, we just need to reach out and invite them to show us the way forward.