Module 1: Introduction — What Is Youth Studies? Digital Storytelling

Society’s Quest for Youthfulness and the Youth Studies Field

Throughout the ages, adults have attempted to stave off aging and exhibited a desire to remain young and beautiful. Yet, paradoxically, young people have not historically been well treated or thoughtfully conceived of by adults. This tension — the simultaneous romanticization of youth and the condemnation of young people — runs through the entirety of youth studies as a field and forms one of its animating contradictions.

James Côté (2014) argues that young people are very much situated within modern society, and much has been written about youth consumption, fear, and individualism. However, he contends that current knowledge has yet to provide a true rendering of how youth experiences are socially organized by modern society’s institutions such as schools, governments, families, and the labour market. He suggests that the contemporary field of youth studies attempts to do precisely this, but that the field is currently in a state of flux.

The two main questions Côté (2014) urges the field to ask are: to what extent are youth experiences influenced by modern society, and how do these influences work? These questions cascade outward into further inquiries: What does this mean for the treatment of young people in society? How do young people find their way? How do they act, resist, conform, and negotiate their social contexts? What are the fundamental social processes by which they do so? Can we help young people to craft a good life? These questions serve as an organizing spine for the entire course.

Digital Storytelling as Methodology

In this course, digital storytelling occupies a central methodological and pedagogical role. Digital storytelling refers to the combination of text, pictures, graphics, video, voice, and music to create a 2–8 minute narrative that can be used for research, community development, and policy change (Switzer & Abramovich, 2012). Digital stories typically revolve around a particular theme, contain a particular viewpoint, and bring social media and firsthand experience together to educate and inform the public. The digital storytelling movement began in San Francisco as a method for therapy, using autobiography as a tool for self-discovery. The American Digital Storytelling Association defines it as “the modern expression of the ancient art of storytelling” in which stories derive power by “weaving images, music, narrative, and voice together, giving deep dimension and vivid colour to characters, situations, experiences and insights.”

Benefits of Digital Storytelling

Switzer and Abramovich (2012) identify eight key benefits of digital storytelling. First, it presents complex stories in accessible ways. Second, it deconstructs the expert: marginalized individuals and communities have traditionally been viewed as “consumers” of knowledge and have rarely been credited as experts in their own experiences. Digital storytelling inverts this hierarchy by asking youth to present what they know, experience, think, and feel. Third, it honours the lived experiences of youth communities. Fourth, it encourages self-expression, communication, exploration, and social justice. Fifth, it builds bridges between communities by identifying different forms of oppression and interrogating the notion of “us” vs. “them.” Sixth, it provides an avenue for people to reflect upon and make meaning from their experiences. Seventh, it creates social change by informing programming, policy, and research. Eighth, it makes knowledge more accessible by reaching multiple audiences.

Limitations of Digital Storytelling

Robin (2006) and Switzer and Abramovich (2012) also identified several limitations. Digital stories cannot be enjoyed where new media technologies are not widely available, making them an exclusionary form of media. They generally take longer to create than traditional stories and require expensive technology such as cameras, microphones, and computers — equipment many people lack. Raw emotional content poses risks: some stories are “too fresh to share” or creators later regret what they disclosed. Digital stories make individuals visible and recognizable, making anonymity difficult. Filmmakers must balance their own creative needs with the needs of the audience. Finally, questions of who owns the story and who benefits from its telling can generate contestation.

Digital Storytelling and Indigenous Youth

Eglinton, Gubrium, and Wexler (2017) examined digital storytelling as an arts-inspired mode of inquiry particularly suited to engaging, understanding, and supporting Indigenous youth. Their study involved hundreds of Alaska Native youth across twelve rural villages in Northwest Alaska who produced digital stories as part of a sustained initiative. Analyzing these productions as data, the researchers found that digital storytelling functions as a “tool of identity” (after Hannerz, 1983) and a site of world-making. Digital stories served as “polyvocal” spaces of learning and connection, creating what Willis (1990) termed “grounded aesthetics” — meaning-making through everyday cultural production. The researchers argue that digital storytelling as arts-inspired inquiry can help practitioners and communities understand and support Indigenous and marginalized youth by taking their lives, concerns, and resources seriously in their own right.

Catherine Boase (2008) further documented the pedagogic potential of digital storytelling, reviewing its use across multiple contexts. She found that digital storytelling can be “remarkably effective both for the story maker and the viewer, with potential for learning, reflection and self-discovery,” making it “a potent weapon in the pedagogic arsenal, particularly in respect of active learning.”

Module 2: Youth in Historical and Societal Context

The Paradoxical Nature of Being Young

Philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle, and the playwright William Shakespeare, have left records expressing concern about those members of their communities who have yet to “come of age.” Yet Kate Tilleczek (2011) asserts that being young is fundamentally “paradoxical.” On the one hand, members of society seem to wish to remain “forever young,” as exemplified by the quest for the “fountain of youth” — immortalized in Lucas Cranach the Elder’s 1546 painting Der Jungbrunnen and echoed in modern popular culture. On the other hand, many adults have simultaneously chastised youth for being irresponsible, lazy, and immature, adopting what scholars call a deficit model of youth.

G. Stanley Hall and the Introduction of “Adolescence”

G. Stanley Hall (1904) was the first person to coin the term adolescence, conceived as a “problem” associated with the transition from childhood to adulthood. Hall’s foundational work Adolescence: Its Psychology and its Relations to Physiology, Anthropology, Sociology, Sex, Crime, Religion and Education proposed that adolescence was characterized by “storm and stress,” “turmoil,” and “raging hormones.” He argued that individuals between the ages of 12 and 24 possessed a distinctive psychological makeup characterized by continual turmoil and conflict.

Hall’s theory was taken up with great enthusiasm by those who favoured a biological (nature) explanation of youth behaviour and puberty. It was also readily adopted by social institutions, particularly schools. Critically, the timing of Hall’s storm and stress theory and the introduction of compulsory secondary schooling in North America coincided in a historically significant way — together they increased the surveillance of young people in institutional settings and contributed to the molding of students into the perceived “ideal” youth and future citizen. The notion that adolescents are prone to uncontrollable biological and hormonal impulses continues to persist in popular and professional thinking today.

Critique of the Essentialist View

James Côté and Anton Allahar (2006) are sharply critical of an essentialist view of youth — the assumption that there is something in the very essence of being young that inevitably produces results such as immaturity or irresponsibility. They contend that archival records do not support such claims and that not all individuals go through such a stage. In particular, the stage appears to be more prominent in Western society; the transition to adulthood is structured remarkably similarly across history; and there is no solid proof that adolescence is an essential stage marked off from other life stages in terms of biology or genetics.

Côté and Allahar (2006) argue that such common-sense and essentialist views are based on stereotypes that emphasize biological factors while ignoring social factors. This perspective generalizes expectations to all members of a group, resulting in young people being closely watched and regulated by adult authorities. Young people who do not accept the conditions of youth are labelled as resistant, seen as having something wrong with them, and described as having a slow and prolonged coming of age.

Côté and Allahar also suggest that “youth” is an analytical social category unlike others — one that has often been ignored by researchers. They propose examining “youth” as a more generic category, as a stand-alone social status, while simultaneously wishing to highlight the broader connections among youth rather than focusing on the demographic divides of race, ethnicity, class, religion, gender, age, ability, and sexual orientation.

The History of Youth in Canada

The lives of Canadian youth today have changed drastically from those in the early 1900s. The industrialization period produced major population shifts from rural to urban areas, the implementation of compulsory elementary and secondary education, changes to notions of what constitutes a family unit, and the altering of employment patterns and availability of work.

Côté (2014) identifies several historical shifts as central to these changes: the identification of the teenager as a “consumer” by marketers in the 1930s; the rise of mass education; the emergence of youth-oriented popular culture; and the collapse of the youth labour market. He argues that these forces have contributed to a prolonged period of youth in which young people are structurally dependent on adults. With the legal age of adulthood in Canada being 18 years, youth are in his view infantilized. He challenges critical youth studies to point out the injustice of this form of infantilization — to demonstrate that adolescence is a social rather than a purely psychological stage.

Module 3: Theoretical Approaches to the Youth Question

Youth Studies as a Field

Youth studies is a relatively new field of higher education with its origins in the field of adolescent psychology that emerged in the early 1900s. It is informed by interdisciplinary and often competing theories drawn from psychology, sociology, cultural studies, and other disciplines. The field has no single, agreed-upon definition of the youth period, which spans from approximately ages 14 to 30 depending on societal context. Professionals who work with youth — educators, social workers, sociologists, psychologists — have been influenced by differing theoretical frameworks, which in turn has shaped how they view and describe youth, and what public policies affecting young people have been created.

The Two Poles of Youth Studies

Côté (2014) contends that theories informing youth studies can be divided into two broad poles: the Transitional Approach and the Cultural Approach.

The Transitional Approach

The transitional approach focuses on the transition to adulthood (e.g., school to work transitions) and draws mostly on quantitative data. It examines structural inequity within transitional patterns — why have some individuals and groups not fared as well as others at school or in the labour market? Theories that fall under this pole include adolescent psychology, psychiatry (particularly theories of pathology), criminology and deviance studies, and the concept of emerging adulthood.

Psychiatry and theories of adolescent pathology historically viewed young people as being “afflicted with the conditions” of adolescence. Heavily influenced by Hall’s storm and stress theory, this approach saw adolescence as a kind of disorder with various symptoms, and recommended that young people “hang on” until their condition passed. Youth occupied a special, paradoxical position: described as “the future generation” on one hand, increasingly regarded as a threat and danger to society on the other. The persistent question directed at youth was: “Is this youth normal?”

Adolescent psychology views adolescence as an “essential” stage in human development and has often tried to fix the “problem individual” who has not progressed smoothly through it. This field historically blames the individual themselves — the deficit model of youth — while ignoring social conditions such as socioeconomics. It strongly favours the nature (biological) over the nurture (sociological) explanation and remains strongly influenced by Hall’s storm and stress theory. A key critique, offered by Proefrock (1981), is that adolescent psychology has been used as a legitimization for the juvenile justice system and to justify surveillance of youth.

Criminology and deviance studies in this vein tends to be conservative and regulatory, focusing on social control and self-control as means of producing conformity and reducing crime. Individual fault is assigned to youth who do not conform to social institutions. Noncompliant youth are labelled as deviants requiring surveillance — enforced through tools such as curfews and juvenile detention. A Canadian example is the 2004 attempt in Huntingdon, Quebec to impose a curfew banning teenagers from public spaces between 10:30 p.m. and 6 a.m. in response to graffiti that was initially blamed on youth.

Emerging Adulthood

Jeffrey Arnett (2000; 2004) proposed emerging adulthood as a new developmental life course phase, predominantly observable in Western society, spanning from the end of adolescence to the young-adult responsibilities of stable employment, marriage, and parenthood. Building on Erik Erikson’s (1968) theory of identity exploration, Arnett describes emerging adulthood as the age of: (1) identity exploration — deciding who you are and what you want; (2) possibilities — optimism about the future; (3) instability — repeated residence changes; (4) self-focus — freed from parental and educational routines; and (5) feeling in-between — not completely feeling like an adult even when taking on responsibilities.

Critics question whether emerging adulthood can truly be considered a developmental stage when it does not apply universally to all young people. Other critics see it as a “failure of youth to grow up.” Côté (2014) is sharply critical, contending that emerging adulthood is not culturally universal, cannot be generalized to all social classes, and that it describes an age period rather than a developmental stage. He argues the delay to adulthood observed in modern times is due to structural issues — changes in education, the economy, and the workforce — not to a new developmental psychology. He questions why governments at all levels have adopted the concept in policy without questioning its validity and reliability.

The Cultural Approach

The cultural approach focuses on youth cultural forms (e.g., music and fashion) and draws mostly on qualitative methods such as ethnography. This approach often highlights youth creativity and resistance to the status quo in a positive light. Cultural approaches include cultural anthropology, sociology, functionalism, conflict theory, late modernism, interactionism, and postmodernism and cultural studies.

Cultural anthropology enters youth studies through the foundational work of Margaret Mead (1928). Working with a cross-section of teenage girls from the island of Samoa (pre-pubescent, pubescent, and post-pubescent), Mead found no major emotional difference among them, and concluded that societal factors — not biology — were responsible for the emotional turmoil Hall had attributed to adolescence. Her book Coming of Age in Samoa challenged the universality of Hall’s stage theory by demonstrating cultural variation.

Within sociology, several sub-approaches are relevant. The late modernist approach holds that youth today live in a time of less normative guidance, with more freedom but less direction from family and religion. Theorists in this vein argue there is less insistence for youth to grow up, and that youth are “increasingly floundering.” The subcultural approach, which emerged from the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies at the University of Birmingham in 1964, draws from functionalist theory. It argues that postwar economic prosperity and compulsory schooling created conditions for a separate youth culture with different values than those of adults. Youth subcultures (e.g., skinheads) are understood as drawing upon working-class backgrounds to re-create working-class community and protest the effects of capitalism.

Conflict theory emphasizes social, political, or material inequality and critiques the broader socio-political system. In youth studies, it describes the power differential between youth and adults. Under this branch fall theories of arrested or delayed development (Côté, 2000; Côté & Allahar, 2006) — the idea that the prolonged youth period is linked to mass compulsory secondary education and expanding post-secondary systems, leading to credentialism and youth underemployment.

The New Political Economy of Youth (Côté, 2014) examines the changing economic opportunities of young people relative to other age groups and explores increased unemployment rates for youth. This approach contends that limiting employment opportunities for youth leads to increased numbers entering post-secondary institutions. It sees young people as “educated” into a state of false consciousness — pressured to work against their own interests, believing in meritocracy (the myth that hard work will lead to success) while structural inequalities remain invisible. Youth are branded as identity-hungry consumers susceptible to market branding and exploited by corporations as cheap labour and as consumers of products.

Functionalism holds that the current prolonged transition to adulthood is due to social and institutional changes such as industrialization, urbanization, economic prosperity, and compulsory schooling — and that this extended period allows individuals better preparation for the complexities of modern life.

Interactionism is atheoretical in nature, adopting grounded theory free from paradigm assumptions. It seeks to understand the world “as it is” through approaches such as symbolic interactionism, narrative approaches, and digital storytelling.

Postmodernism and cultural studies approach youth from a macro-nominal perspective, refute grand theorizing, and explore identity politics. Identity is seen as fluid, unstable, and discursive, based on the intersection of gender, race, class, sexual orientation, ability, and other vectors of social location.

Module 4: Adolescence — Transition to Adulthood?

Theory, History, and Demographics

The history of youth in Canada has been shaped by national and international wars, economic depressions, the implementation of mass compulsory education, changes in the Canadian Youth Criminal Justice Act, the Youth Justice Movement in the United States, the Children’s Rights Movement, and the proliferation of digital and global influences including social media.

Côté (2014) identifies four demographic trends that have impacted the delay in the transition to adulthood in Canada:

1. Increased life expectancy. As life expectancy has risen dramatically, young people now compete in the workplace with older workers who are well-suited to modern work requirements. Changes to mandatory retirement ages — such as Ontario’s 2006 amendment to the Human Rights Code, which protects all persons aged 18 and over against discrimination in employment based on age — have also affected the labour market.

2. An aging population. In July 2015, Statistics Canada announced that there are now more people in Canada aged 65 and over than there are under age 15. An older population occupying the workforce reduces entry opportunities for youth.

3. Increased participation in post-secondary education. In 2010, there were almost 1.2 million students in degree programs on Canadian campuses: 755,000 undergraduates, 143,400 full-time graduate students, and an additional 275,800 studying part-time. Fifty-six percent of university students were women and 10 percent were international students. The number of full-time university students more than doubled since 1980.

4. Increased numbers of women in the Canadian workplace. In 2011, 64.8 percent of working-age women held post-secondary qualifications, compared with 63.4 percent of men — the first time females had surpassed males in overall educational attainment (Statistics Canada, 2011). Yet despite surpassing men in educational attainment, women continue to earn less than male counterparts, remain concentrated in traditional female occupations, and are over-represented in part-time work.

Education at a Glance: OECD Data

Canada has one of the highest participation rates in post-secondary education. The OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) data indicates that 55 percent of Canadians between ages 25 and 64 have some form of post-secondary education. Notably, the OECD counts Quebec’s CEGEP (Collège d’enseignement Général et Professionnel) programs as tertiary education, which likely skews Canada’s numbers upward. Canada is much closer to the OECD average when it comes to bachelor’s degrees: approximately 20 percent, slightly above the OECD average of 16 percent. Canada spends approximately $9,130 USD annually per primary school student.

The Credentialism Paradox

Canadian youth are repeatedly told by parents, educators, and the business sector that without higher educational credentials, economic prospects are limited. The paradox is that most jobs have changed little since the rise of “credentialism”: the majority of positions involve essentially the same skills as when a degree was not required to perform them. Côté (2014) describes the credentialism paradox: credentialed skills often have little directly to do with the work eventually performed, but without credentials one’s employability and earning power are jeopardized. This raises the question: has “on-the-job” training once provided by employers been downloaded to educational institutions, with employers now expecting prospective employees to arrive “pre-trained”?

Unemployment and underemployment have risen as results of credentialism. Youth unemployment in Canada averaged 14.10 percent from 1976 to 2017, with an all-time high of 20.70 percent in October 1982. In 2017, the Canadian youth unemployment rate was approximately double the adult rate. Underemployment — where highly skilled workers are employed in low-skill, low-pay jobs — affects approximately 27 percent of Canadian youth. Among engineers in Ontario, underemployment reaches 33 percent.

The rapid expansion of post-secondary institutions has further complicated the landscape. An oversupply of graduates produces declining market value for credentials. Employers can now require higher education even for low-skilled positions, and there is an emerging trend of declining wages. These patterns disproportionately affect women, who are more likely to find themselves in part-time work and in lower-wage occupations.

Social class reproduction runs through all of these trends. The elongation of the school-to-work transition is manageable for those whose parents can fund post-secondary education, but deeply inequitable for families who cannot. Parental wealth and status can affect life chances more than merit. The shrinking middle class means many youth face the prospect of not doing as well financially or occupationally as their parents.

“Generation Screwed”: Youth Voices

CBC’s 2013 documentary and 2014 follow-up by Peter Mansbridge explored whether Canadian youth constitute a “Generation Screwed.” Students at the University of British Columbia voiced a complex mixture of optimism and anxiety. Many had internalized the promise that higher education leads to stable employment, yet found themselves facing debt, precarious work, and “credential inflation” — the sense that “you can’t just come out with one degree anymore; you have to have more.” Some students like Kinsey Powell, a twenty-year-old who had founded a clothing company while studying commerce, reframed the narrative: “We’re ‘Generation Different.’ Our life is starting at thirty.”

The 2017 CBC National documentary Is a University Degree a Waste of Time? profiled Christian McCray, a mechanical engineering graduate who applied for 250 engineering jobs after graduation and received zero offers, ultimately attempting to find work at Sobeys as a deli slicer. The documentary also featured Kimberly Ellis-Hale, a sociology professor at Laurier University who had been teaching on contract since 1998 and lacked benefits, encapsulating the contradiction of “teaching in a place that sells education as the path to a better, more secure life” while personally experiencing precarious employment. The University of Regina’s “UR Guarantee” — offering students a free additional year if they do not secure full-time employment in their field within six months of graduation — represents one institutional attempt to address the broken promise of post-secondary credentials.

Module 5: Methodological Debates in Youth Studies

Theory, Methodology, and Validity

Côté (2014) argues that scholars in the social sciences gather empirical evidence through observation to demonstrate the merits of a particular theory. This seeking of “theories of truth” has roots in William James’ (1907) work on pragmatism. Over time, empirical tests build evidence about the extent to which a theory corresponds to empirical reality — what can be described as the correspondence theory of truth. Theories also operate through a consensus theory of truth: they gain credibility partly because their logic seems sound to a significant number of scholars.

Theories in any discipline rise or fall depending on how much empirical support they receive. However, theories are also susceptible to group think — a belief by researchers that their chosen framework is entirely coherent and applicable, sometimes leading to theories being stretched beyond their appropriate context while alternatives are dismissed. Researchers may become emotionally attached to theoretical frameworks due to personal and political bias.

Key Theoretical Debates

Five major theoretical debates structure the field of youth studies and have direct methodological implications:

Nature vs. Nurture. Psychology has historically supported the “nature” side — behaviours and mental capacities are biologically and genetically based. Failure to meet developmental norms is attributed to the individual (the deficit model). Sociology supports the “nurture” side — people are shaped by social inequalities including socioeconomic status, gender, race, age, ability, and sexual orientation. Sociologists tend to advocate for structural reform rather than individual correction. In the example of a youth failing to graduate from high school, a psychologist may blame the individual for not studying enough, while a sociologist would examine poverty, food insecurity, or systemic racism and advocate for structural remedies such as breakfast programs.

Structure vs. Agency. Youth studies must grapple with how much agency young people actually possess, given the high degree of conformity observable among youth in personal appearance and consumer behaviour. Questions remain: What constitutes agency? Is it innate or learned? Does it vary among people and, if so, why? How is power implicated in agency?

Stage vs. Status. Psychologists view adolescence as a necessary developmental stage; youth who fail to meet expected outcomes at prescribed ages are labelled deviant. Sociologists question these normative assumptions and view youth as an age-status imposed by cultural expectations rather than a universal biological stage. They prefer the term “youth” over “adolescence” and see youth deviance as resistance to oppressive or unreasonable cultural expectations rather than pathology. Historical notions of adolescence are also ethnocentric, given the cultural variation in if and when such a period occurs.

Critical vs. Conservative Politics. Conservative/functionalist researchers assume that existing social arrangements are somehow beneficial and tend to maintain the status quo. They stress individual agency (“architects of their own destiny”) and tend to ignore social factors impacting youth. Critical researchers claim research is never value-free, that bias is always present, and argue for correcting social injustices and challenging the status quo. They would describe conservative politics as essentialist and say it pathologizes adolescence.

Quantitative vs. Qualitative Methodologies. Quantitative research involves structured data, statistical analysis, and objective conclusions, typically associated with realist paradigms such as functionalism. Qualitative research operates from anti-modernist or postmodern paradigms, beginning in the everyday worlds of young people — especially those who are socially marginal — and seeks praxis. Examples include ethnographies, life history methods, discourse analysis, oral histories, and participatory action research.

Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR)

Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR) is gaining momentum in the field and is increasingly incorporated into research with youth. YPAR actively positions young people as researchers rather than merely research subjects, generating knowledge that serves their communities. The YPAR Hub at the University of California, Berkeley, is a major resource for this approach. A Canadian example is the Ca.pture project supported by HIVE Toronto — a youth-driven digital storytelling project that captured and mapped cyberbullying experiences of Greater Toronto Area teens through multiple lenses: survivor, bully, witness, and intervenor.

Module 6: Youth and School

Schools as Critical Sites

Schools are important and influential places for youth, and they are critical sites for youth studies. Youth spend large amounts of time in classrooms with same-age peers, being trained or educated for their future in a rapidly changing labour market. Kate Tilleczek (2011) argues that many practices in schools suggest that schools alone can educate youth, thereby distancing themselves from families and other community agencies. She insists that “it takes a village to raise a child” — that partnerships among teachers, parents, and community members are essential during youth’s maturation.

Three Approaches to Education

Côté (2014) outlines three distinctive approaches to education:

1. Education for Technicians and Technological Education. This approach prepares individuals for life in a technological society, viewing schools as sites for acquiring technical training for gainful employment. Advocates claim that technology heightens our grasp of reality, but this is compromised by declining literacy rates and schools’ inability to keep pace with rapidly changing technology. Many school boards have implemented “Bring Your Own Device” (BYOD) policies as cost-cutting measures, raising questions about equity of access.

2. Education for Young People. This approach is influenced by developmental and cultural psychology. It asserts that the needs and requirements of young people must be the primary consideration in the educational process, and that schools should be designed with students in mind rather than molding students to fit the school. Jean Piaget, the Swiss clinical psychologist renowned for his pioneering work in child development, contends that children’s development must precede their learning. He introduced the concept of “genetic epistemology” — how knowledge is constructed by developing minds. Lev Vygotsky, a Russian psychologist who died in his late thirties, developed a sociocultural approach to cognitive development, leading to “Social Development Theories.” Unlike Piaget, Vygotsky contends that social learning precedes development: “Learning is a necessary and universal aspect of the process of developing culturally organized specifically human psychological function” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 90). His work highlighted four key ideas: children construct knowledge, learning can lead development, development cannot be separated from its social context, and language plays a central role in cognitive development.

3. Education for and with Young People and Society. This approach is influenced by the work of the American psychologist and educational reformer John Dewey, who argued that learning and education are fundamentally social and political processes. Dewey was a progressive educator who advocated for democracy and argued for child-centred learning in which all participants have equal voice. During Dewey’s lifetime, these ideas were radical, since the prevailing Tabula Rasa approach treated students as blank vessels to be filled by teachers who possessed all required knowledge. Paulo Freire (1970) extended Dewey’s critique in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, in which he called traditional pedagogy the “banking model of education” — treating students as empty vessels like piggy banks — and called for pedagogy that treats learners as co-creators of knowledge. Jean Anyon (1981), in her widely cited article “Social Class and School Knowledge,” documented how social stratification of knowledge is reproduced even within a standardized elementary school curriculum, arguing that “subtle as well as dramatic differences in the curriculum and the curriculum-in-use” perpetuate social inequalities.

Criticisms of Mass Education

Ken Robinson (2006) in his famous TED Talk Do Schools Kill Creativity? challenged the way we educate children, arguing for a radical rethinking of school systems to cultivate creativity and acknowledge multiple types of intelligence. Robinson (2015) further documented that mass educational systems around the world look and feel remarkably similar, structured to serve industrial rather than human needs.

Côté (2014) asserts that critics of education argue that systems at all levels suffer from underfunding, overcrowding, declining standards, and delegitimation among students who attend largely because there are no alternatives in the labour market. Youth often describe straddling the tensions of modern schooling: they may not “like” school, but see the need for education and continue enrolling. The educational cynic may ask: why do youth enrol in post-secondary education despite rising tuition costs and bleak job prospects? Youth give multiple reasons: obtaining the credential, gaining experience and social outcomes, and maintaining social connections with friends.

The Paradox of Mass Education and Neoliberalism

Côté (2014) notes the profound irony that the mass expansion of education — more students spending more time in schools — has coincided with a shift to a neoliberal paradigm that shifts fiscal responsibility away from governments onto individuals. When increasing numbers of young people from all backgrounds are pressured to attend school, the simultaneous shift toward privatizing its costs raises urgent questions about justice and access.

Sociological Perspectives on Education

Functionalism provides key explanations through the work of Émile Durkheim and Talcott Parsons. Witnessing the declining influence of the church and the rise of individualism, Durkheim emphasized the moral role schools play as socialization agents — young people need to learn a set of rules that benefits collective social interests. Parsons (1959) described how schools socialize youth into adult roles and establish a social hierarchy based on the meritocratic process that supports social stability. From a functionalist perspective, education maintains the status quo rather than leveling the playing field.

Conflict theory holds that schooling is a key institution in the reproduction of social inequality. Bowles and Gintis (1976) argued that organizational hierarchies in schools, streaming practices, and pedagogical approaches reproduce social inequalities. Bernstein (1977), Coleman et al. (1966), and Willis (1977) further explored how school systems, teacher behaviour, and curriculum disadvantage youth from low socioeconomic backgrounds. A strong association between family socioeconomic status and educational attainment persists to the present day (Lehmann, 2016). Conflict theorists call for educational reform so that schools can become genuine equalizers for marginalized youth.

Module 7: Friends and Family in the Lives of Youth

The Great Debate: Friends vs. Family

One of the great debates in youth studies is the relative importance of friends and family. When Canadian high school students were asked what was very important to them, 85 percent cited friends and freedom at the top of their lists (Canadian Council on Social Development, 2017). The importance of peers is not new — previous generations also highly valued their peers. Young people and their friends do often separate themselves from children and adults to form their own distinct culture consisting of images (fashion, hair, tattoos), demeanours (gestures and postures), and distinct ways of talking.

However, does increased time with friends necessarily translate into poor relationships with families? Data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Children and Youth (2010) suggest the answer is no: when youth faced a situation needing discussion, they said they were most likely to talk to their mothers (83%) or father (63%). This suggests that peers and families are both important to youth and that the two are not mutually exclusive.

Tilleczek (2011) suggests that family (in all its forms) is the main source of longer-term and ongoing support and modelling for youth. Young people tend to emulate their parents’ value systems on substantial issues (politics, education) while emulating their friends on more fleeting matters (fashion, fads). In 2001, only 68% of Canadian youth had biological parents who were married to each other, reflecting significant structural change in family forms. What remains constant, regardless of structural changes, is the enduring need for supportive and loving caregivers.

Are All Childhoods Equal?

Annette Lareau (2003) conducted a landmark longitudinal ethnographic study of 88 American families from various racial and class backgrounds (Black, white, middle-class, working-class, and poor), then conducted in-depth observations of 12 of these families. Her findings, published in Unequal Childhoods, reveal that middle-class families raise their children differently from working-class and poor families, and that these differences cut across racial lines.

Lareau describes two distinct parenting logics. Poor and working-class parents practice “Accomplishment of Natural Growth Parenting,” in which children have long periods of unstructured time, interact organically with family and neighbours, and watch television. These parents give orders to children rather than soliciting their opinions and believe children will reach adulthood naturally without too much adult interference. In contrast, middle-class parents practice “concerted cultivation,” in which children are driven to numerous extracurricular activities, involved in family discussions, encouraged to advocate for themselves with teachers, and included in negotiation of discipline. Lareau speculates that concerted cultivation creates adults with the skills to remain in the middle class, while working-class youth lack such training.

Parenting Styles

Steinberg (2001) identifies four parenting styles based on dimensions of demandingness and responsiveness:

• The authoritative style is high on both demandingness and responsiveness.
• The authoritarian style is high on demandingness but low on responsiveness.
• The indulgent style is low on demandingness but high on responsiveness.
• The indifferent style is low on both dimensions.

Côté (2014) draws on extensive scholarship to argue that authoritative parenting produces the best developmental outcomes for youth — fewer problems with depression and anxiety, higher self-esteem, increased self-efficacy, better moral development, and better academic performance. Youth with positive relationships with their parents are more likely to be satisfied with their lives.

Social Dissent vs. Positive Youth Development

Hall’s storm and stress theory continues to influence contemporary views of youth, resulting in the persistence of negative framings. The field of adolescent psychology has extensively studied “problem youth” — young people seen as being “at risk” of not developing into “normal,” mature, capable adults. “At risk” youth discussions in education and counselling have led to policies that target and blame the individual rather than examining the social construction of difficult situations.

Richard M. Lerner (2007) proposed a shift toward the study of positive youth development, in which the strengths and possibilities of youth are placed at the core of theory and practice. The focus shifts to “how things go right” rather than “how things go wrong.” This reorientation asks: What can we do to speak differently about adolescents? What can we do to promote the good things adolescents do? What must we do to promote positive youth development?

Module 8: Youth and Work

School-to-Work Transitions

Today’s society offers less of a smooth transition between school and work than historically was the case. The elongation of the youth period has resulted in increased youth dependence on parents. Researchers who study youth and work from a neo-Marxist or political economy perspective describe young people as sources of cheap labour in the service industry and as consumers with disposable income to spend on products promoted by marketers.

Côté (2014) notes that youth enter the part-time labour force earlier than past generations, in part due to increased consumerism. The Frontline documentary Merchants of Cool (Goodman & Dretzin, 2001) illustrates what it calls “one giant feedback loop”: the media watches youth to see what is deemed “cool,” markets it back to them, and youth then purchase the products explicitly marketed to them — often using earnings from part-time work. Young people who aspire to be “cool” work low-paying service jobs to buy the products that markers use to define “cool.” The perfect feedback loop means youth are both the object and subject of consumer capitalism simultaneously.

Life at Work for Youth

Young people typically begin with odd jobs (babysitting, snow shoveling, pet sitting, lawn care), then move into food service and retail. An additional growing trend is non-paid internship work to gain résumé experience. Work has both benefits and limitations.

Benefits include: teaching responsibility and punctuality; honing social and interpersonal skills; earning money and learning its value; broader cultural exposure; valuable work experience; exploring potential career options; and acquiring new skill sets.

Limitations identified by Côté (2014) include: excessive work (20+ hours/week) is detrimental to academic achievement; part-time jobs are often “unattractive” (routinized, boring, highly supervised, requiring few skills); jobs in retail and food service are often fast-paced, stressful, and sometimes dangerous; and interactions with difficult customers and bosses are common. Such employment can often be described as a McJob — service sector work characterized by low pay, low prestige, low dignity, and few prospects for advancement.

Perspectives on Youth and Work

Conservative and/or functionalist researchers (as Côté describes) may suggest that teen work requires less skill, justifying lower wages. They may argue that the contemporary adult workforce is highly skilled and technological, making delays in work entry necessary. They may assume that young people can choose to delay labour force entry and are supported by parents, ignoring youth who need to work.

Radical political economists counter that the delay in youth work enables the sorting of people into occupational roles, maintaining the status quo — the reproduction of social class. They argue that decreased job numbers are due to technological advances and urbanization. The service sector exploits youth, women, and visible minorities as sources of cheap labour (low wages, no benefits). Increased credentialism has led employers to download job training responsibilities to educational institutions. “Stop-gap” jobs often become permanent, resulting in youth meandering, drifting, or bouncing around in the workforce. The youth labour market reproduces cultural and socio-economic inequalities — in Ontario’s oversupplied teaching market, for example, only those with financial family support can afford to navigate years of occasional teaching and contract work before securing full-time positions.

The MacDonald-Laurier Institute (Cross, 2015) raised concerns about how Statistics Canada defines the youth labour force (ages 15–24), arguing that including 15-year-olds misrepresents the true state of the jobs market for young Canadians. Fewer than one in five 15-year-olds holds a job, yet this group is included in calculations that affect policy and public perception of youth employment.

Module 9: Youth and Identity

Social Identity: Outside In and Inside Out

Côté (2014) argues that there is a major fracture among youth researchers interested in how young people define their “spaces and places” in the world. Social identities are viewed as having two principal facets: identities viewed from the “outside in” and identities viewed from the “inside out.”

“Outside In” (Social Identity)

The “outside in” facet of social identity is influenced by the field of sociology and focuses on structural and social influences. Scholars debate whether social identities such as race, ethnicity, gender, or sexual orientation are more salient than age for youth. Those who support age as a social category argue it is important for youth studies to contrast youth and adult identities. Others feel that social identity differences (diversity) among youth should be the focus.

Côté (2014) cautions that a limitation of focusing solely on “diversity” is that attention is diverted from the increasing polarization of wealth and structural obstacles confronting youth collectively. He argues that simply cataloguing various disadvantages (gender, race, social class, ability, sexual orientation) when investigating “multiple youths” distracts from identifying what is unique about historically specific forms of youth. Young people collectively confront structural opportunities and obstacles by virtue of their age status, and postmodernist approaches may be more useful when viewed from the perspective of structural effects on aspects of social identity — some structures provide opportunities for some and obstacles for others. A useful forward path involves estimating both the structural resources different young people have access to and the agentic resources they can mobilize.

“Inside Out” (Personal Identity)

The “inside out” facet is influenced by psychology and focuses on individual youth as both subjects and agents. This facet explores the mental processes through which social identity formations take on various meanings. Some theorists contend that while identity contents differ, identity processes are often universal in Western society — that people possess the same mental operations for processing identity-relevant information.

Gender, Sexual Orientation, and Youth Identity

Côté (2014) maintains that there are no significant psychological differences in identity formation between boys and girls. Rather, identity differences have been identified in specific domains (e.g., females and interpersonal concerns). The 2009 documentary Straightlaced: How Gender’s Got Us All Tied Up, featuring more than 50 youth in the United States, explores how gender expectations intersect with race, culture, class, and sexuality.

Transgender describes people who do not conform or identify with gender expectations associated with their sex at birth. This can include people who live as the gender they feel inside, altering their bodies with hormone therapy and sometimes surgery, as well as people who identify as transgender or transsexual. The Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) emphasizes that sexual orientation (whom we are attracted to) is not the same as gender identity (the personal feeling of being a man, a woman, or neither).

CHEO describes gender not as binary (male or female) but as a continuum or spectrum. Key terminology includes: sex (designated sex, about bodies); gender identity (the personal feeling of being a man, a woman, or neither); gender non-conforming / gender queer (not identifying as a man or a woman); transgender/transsexual (not conforming to gender expectations of one’s sex at birth); and Two Spirit (a reclaimed concept from First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples, referring to Aboriginal people who fulfill roles across sex and gender lines). Two Spirit people were historically considered gifts to the community, respected as visionaries, peacemakers, and healers.

Research indicates that gender identity is not a choice and develops from many factors working together. There is no evidence that parenting or other outside exposure causes children to become transgender. Telephone surveys in the US (2010) indicated that approximately 1 in 200 people are transgender. People who are gender non-conforming who receive the love and support of family and community have the best chance of growing up to be happy, productive adults; those forced to remain “closeted” due to shame and fear of rejection face significantly elevated risks of depression, substance abuse, and suicide.

In Ontario, Gay-Straight Alliances (GSAs) are legally mandated in all publicly funded schools. OK2BME is a set of free, supportive services for LGBTQ+-identified children, teens, and their families in the Kitchener-Waterloo area.

The EGALE National Climate Survey: Every Class in Every School

Catherine Taylor and Tracey Peter (2011) conducted the first national survey regarding the experiences of LGBTQ+ youth in Canadian schools, commissioned by the Egale Canada Human Rights Trust and published as Every Class in Every School: The First National Climate Survey on Homophobia, Biphobia, and Transphobia in Canadian Schools. The survey involved over 3,700 students from across Canada between December 2007 and June 2009, using both an open-access online survey and controlled in-school sessions in 20 randomly selected school districts across all regions (with parallel Québec research).

Key Findings: School Climate

Homophobic and transphobic comments:

• 70% of all participating students (LGBTQ and non-LGBTQ) reported hearing expressions such as “that’s so gay” every day in school.
• Almost half (48%) reported hearing remarks such as “faggot,” “lezbo,” and “dyke” every day.
• Almost 10% of LGBTQ students reported hearing homophobic comments from teachers daily or weekly; among trans students, this figure was 17%.
• Hardly any LGBTQ students reported that they never heard homophobic comments from other students (only 1% of trans students; 2% of female sexual minority students; 4% of male sexual minority students).
• 58% of heterosexual students also reported finding homophobic comments upsetting — indicating vast untapped solidarity and latent support for change in school culture.

Verbal harassment:

• 74% of trans students, 55% of sexual minority students, and 26% of non-LGBTQ students reported being verbally harassed about their gender expression.
• 37% of trans students, 32% of female sexual minority students, and 20% of male sexual minority students reported being verbally harassed daily or weekly about their sexual orientation.
• More than a third (37%) of youth with LGBTQ parents reported being verbally harassed about their parents’ sexual orientation.

Physical harassment and assault:

• More than one in five (21%) LGBTQ students reported being physically harassed or assaulted due to their sexual orientation.
• 37% of trans students, 21% of sexual minority students, and 10% of non-LGBTQ students reported physical harassment or assault because of gender expression.
• Over a quarter (27%) of youth with LGBTQ parents reported physical harassment about their parents’ sexual orientation.

Sexual harassment:

• 49% of trans students reported sexual harassment in school in the past year.
• 43% of female bisexual students and 42% of male bisexual students reported sexual harassment.
• 40% of gay male students and 33% of lesbian students reported sexual harassment.

Unsafe spaces:

• Almost two-thirds (64%) of LGBTQ students and 61% of students with LGBTQ parents reported feeling unsafe at school.
• The two spaces most frequently experienced as unsafe are gender-segregated spaces: Physical Education change rooms (reported as unsafe by 49% of LGBTQ youth) and washrooms (43% of LGBTQ students). Female sexual minority students were most likely to report change rooms as unsafe (59%). High numbers of trans youth (52%) reported feeling unsafe in both change rooms and washrooms. This correlation between the policing of gender and youth not feeling safe contradicts assumptions that homophobic and transphobic incidents take place primarily in male-only spaces.

The Role of Institutional Responses

Safe school policies: Generic safe school policies that do not specifically address homophobia are not effective in improving the school climate for LGBTQ+ students. LGBTQ+ students from schools with anti-homophobia policies reported significantly fewer incidents of physical and verbal harassment: 80% of LGBTQ+ students in schools with such policies reported never having been physically harassed, versus 67% in schools without them.

LGBTQ-inclusive curriculum and GSAs (Gay-Straight Alliances): Students from schools with GSAs are much more likely to agree that their school communities are supportive of LGBTQ people, are more likely to be open with peers about their sexual orientation and/or gender identity, and are more likely to see their school climate as becoming less homophobic. GSA prevalence is highest in BC and Ontario; students in the Prairies, Atlantic provinces, and the North reported much lower GSA presence.

Teacher intervention: The silence of teachers not only validates homophobia but “ensures the recirculation of fear” by teaching students they are on their own in navigating homophobic environments. Many school authorities and parents tacitly approve of homophobia as an “efficient technology” for making children “turn out heterosexual.” The report argues that if teachers were to lead the way by speaking respectfully of LGBTQ people, the silent majority — the 58% of heterosexual students and the approximately 14% of students who are LGBTQ — would have more reason for courage.

Intersectionality

The EGALE report notes the importance of recognizing that LGBTQ+ people come from various cultures and communities. Students of colour and Aboriginal students face compound layers of marginalization — indicators of isolation were higher for racialized LGBTQ+ students than for Caucasian LGBTQ+ students. The concept of intersectionality — that multiple axes of identity interact to shape experiences of privilege and disadvantage — is essential for understanding the school experiences of racialized, Indigenous, and LGBTQ+ youth.

Social Class, Ethnicity, and Identity

Côté (2014) notes that social class has largely been ignored by psychological examinations of identity formation, while sociological research has a long history of targeting class differences. The 1964 British documentary Seven Up followed a group of working-class and upper-class children from age 7, refilming them at seven-year intervals through age 63, illustrating the complex interactions between class background, personal agency, and life outcomes.

On ethnicity, Côté identifies three historical errors in early research on ethnic identity formation: assuming ethnic groups are homogenous; assuming members of a particular ethnic group define themselves in relation only to their own group; and assuming they define themselves only in relation to other ethnic groups. In the Canadian context, Davies and Guppy (2014) argue that the most marginalized group of youth in Canadian schools is young Aboriginal people, and call for examination of and change to what is happening in schools.

The Social Identity Wheel offers a visual representation encouraging reflection on multiple social identities — age, physical abilities and qualities, ethnicity, gender, race, and sexual orientation — and on how those identities become visible or more keenly felt at different times and how they impact others’ perceptions.

Module 10: Youth Activism and Social Change

How Do People Work With and For Youth?

Tilleczek (2011; 2012) asserts that there are three ways in which individuals “work with and for” youth: research, youth programs, and policies and laws. The danger is that programs and policies can be ill-informed by research, as some methodologies are better than others at including, listening to, and hearing youth. Creation of youth programs such as community-based youth centres is key. Policies and laws — government youth policies, education acts — are also essential considerations.

Côté and Allahar (2006) raise a critical question: how do youth negotiate, engage in, or resist the social relations around them? All youth actions are neither inherently praiseworthy nor problematic — there is a wide variety of youth responses to social structures.

Youth-Driven Social Actions and Youth Voice

Claims have been made that youth have increasingly become disengaged from community, policy, and citizenship. Caron, Raby, Mitchell, Thewiaawn-LeBlanc, and Prioletta (2017) argue that youth actions are often overlooked by adults who hold a narrow definition of active citizenship (one who votes). They note that governments, policymakers, educators, and grassroots organizations have sought to foster and recognize “youth voice” as vital to public participation, and that social media is increasingly enabling such voices.

These researchers question the notion of “voice” itself — asking whose voices and what kinds of voices are embraced. Youth voices are neither unitary nor equal. They prefer the term “social change-oriented youth voices” (after Levine, 2008) — voice that “can persuade other people beyond closest friends and family to take action on shared issues.” They are also skeptical of claims that youth voice is “inherently empowering or an inevitable form of active participation.” Youth voices can be used to meet the political needs of an organization rather than for the benefit of young people; not all youth actions qualify as social action (e.g., clicking a “like” button). Crucially, they argue that it is problematic to assume young people do not have a voice until adults provide them with one.

Youth Activism in Canada

Brigette DePape (2012) wrote Power of Youth: Youth and Community-Led Activism in Canada, arguing that structures in society are top-down, with those in power telling those without power what to do. DePape calls on youth to engage in grassroots activism in areas such as Indigenous education and anti-poverty work. She rejects the notion that Canadian youth are apathetic, arguing instead that they are barred from meaningful engagement by corporations and governments — not that they lack a voice, but that their voice is not being heard.

DePape includes examples of youth-led projects that move beyond charity to political change, such as 13-year-old McKenna Pope’s online petition to Hasbro to change the Easy-Bake Oven’s pink-and-purple colour scheme and incorporate boys in its marketing.

Approaches to Youth-Led Social Change

Three approaches to youth-led social change have been identified:

1. Working within existing formal channels (e.g., Rotary Clubs, UNICEF, other established organizations) to make desired changes.
2. Working against existing regulations — for example, through culture jamming, which involves subverting or disrupting mainstream media messages and consumer culture.
3. Youth Studies as Praxis (Tilleczek, 2011): critical social inquiry that benefits and engages young people in the process itself. Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR) is the exemplar of this approach.

Evaluating Youth-Led Social Change

Ho, Clarke, and Dougherty (2015) propose a framework for evaluating the impact of youth-led social change initiatives on Canadian society, considering the relationship between strategy and scale of impact:

Stock (2016) argues that youth are neither passive recipients, “citizens-in-the-making,” nor violent threats to democracy. Rather, it is important to recognize and support youth-led activism that may appear less conventional — works of art, critical praxis, transformational resistance, or YPAR.

Social Policy With and For Youth

Canada does not have comprehensive youth policies like those in place in Sweden and Finland, despite recent calls for such a commitment at local, provincial, national, and international levels. Côté (2014) notes that social policy is sometimes used to rationalize political decisions rather than advance individual or social well-being, and that governments often overlook and exclude the work young people do toward social policy.

Module 11: Youth and Political Participation

Are Youth Disengaged From Formal Politics?

There is widespread concern in Canada and elsewhere that youth are disengaged from formal politics, particularly voting. The organization Apathy Is Boring was founded in response to this concern, working to engage young Canadians in the democratic process. Côté (2014) and Tilleczek (2011) both argue that poor voter turnout is detrimental to youth because politicians will not attend to their interests as long as youth do not constitute a voting bloc. It is also a detriment to democracy itself because power is ceded to elites when the youth bloc is not mobilized.

Côté (2014) suggests youth disengagement may stem from the lack of representation of youth issues in the Canadian political agenda, due in part to the rise of neoliberal politics since the 1980s. Political economists would argue that youth are being manipulated to distance themselves from mainstream politics, leaving elites free to pursue agendas harmful to the young. He questions whether young people are genuinely resisting the status quo by not voting and doubts the emergence of a youth political revolution in the near term.

Historical Trends in Youth Voter Turnout

Youth voter turnout in Canada declined significantly from the 1960s through the early 2000s, reaching a historic low in 2008 (58.8% of all registered voters; less than 40% of Canadians aged 18–24). From 2004 to 2011, general elections showed consistent gaps between youth and older voter turnout rates.

The 2015 Federal Election: A Turning Point

The 2015 federal election saw a dramatic reversal of the youth disengagement trend. According to Elections Canada data released in June 2016 (reported by CBC’s Éric Grenier), turnout among eligible voters aged 18–24 increased by 18.3 percentage points, from 38.8% in 2011 to 57.1% in 2015. Among voters eligible to cast a ballot for the first time, turnout increased 17.7 points to 58.3% from 40.5% in 2011. There was also a significant increase among voters 25–34 (to 57.4% from 45.1%).

The most significant single demographic increase was among Canadian women aged 18 to 24: turnout jumped to 60.5% from 40.9% — an increase of 19.6 percentage points. Overall, a higher proportion of women than men voted in 2015 (68% vs. 64.1%).

Jessica Dorfmann writing in the Harvard International Review (2015) attributed the surge to several factors: social media abounding with political content; young Canadians urging peers to vote strategically through websites like strategicvoting.ca and voteswap.ca; election selfies trending on Twitter; nearly 450,000 people RSVPing to a “Stephen Harper Going Away Party” on Facebook; and Elections Canada opening 71 advance-voting stations at university campuses and youth centres. Canadian comedian Rick Mercer gave an impassioned speech stating, “If young people show up to vote, it will change everything.” A September 2015 Samara Canada report found that Canadian millennials were actually more politically active than Canadians over age 30 in online participation. The 2015 election demonstrated that youth voter decline is not inevitable and not permanent — given the right motivation, conditions, accessible infrastructure, and sense that their votes matter, young people do participate.

The National Youth Survey Report (2011)

A National Youth Survey Report was published in 2011 by R.A. Malatest & Associates Ltd. on behalf of Elections Canada, focused on youth aged 18–34, with particular attention to Aboriginal, ethnocultural, rural, disabled, and unemployed youth not in school. Key findings were that these sub-groups:

• Tend to have lower rates of electoral engagement than the general youth population
• Hold less positive views of Canadian politics and democracy
• Are less likely to cite voting as a civic duty
• Are more likely to vote to support or oppose a political party
• Have less exposure to factors that influence rates of voting (e.g., political discussion at home)

Recommendations included: increasing information about how and where to vote; increasing awareness of alternative voting methods; reviewing identification and proof-of-address policies; distributing voter cards electronically; locating polling stations where youth congregate; developing communications to increase political knowledge; and targeting parents to discuss politics with their children.

Programs to Increase Youth Voter Turnout

The Student Vote program is a parallel election for students under the voting age in Canada that coincides with official election periods, providing young Canadians firsthand experience of the democratic process. An independent evaluation in 2011 found that the program significantly increased students’ political knowledge, political discussion with parents, interest in politics, and sense of civic duty. Teachers who participated reported increased confidence in teaching civic education, and parents reported increased political interest as a result of their child’s participation.

Vote Mobs — large-scale public demonstrations of youth enthusiasm for voting, credited largely to comedian Rick Mercer — emerged as another strategy to increase youth voter turnout. The McGill University Vote Mob in April 2011 is among the most famous Canadian examples.

Statistics Canada Data: Political Participation and Civic Engagement

Martin Turcotte’s (2015) Statistics Canada report Insights on Canadian Society: Political Participation and Civic Engagement of Youth provides extensive data on how Canadian youth engage with politics beyond voting — including community volunteering, online political activities, contacting elected officials, and attending political meetings.

Côté (2014) notes that there are other forms of youth political participation beyond voting. Increased youth volunteering in Canada has been driven partly by compulsory community service hours required for high school graduation in many provinces and by the expectation of volunteerism in university scholarship applications. He also discusses political youth expression through the internet and ICTs, cautioning that its individualized nature often means engagement is based on personal preference without critical reflection on larger societal and structural issues.

Samara Canada’s Democracy 360

Samara Canada’s (2017) Democracy 360 report card evaluates how Canadians communicate, participate, and lead in politics. The report provides a Political Participation Activities checklist — including both traditional (voting, contacting elected officials, signing petitions) and alternative (online activism, boycotts, community organizing) forms of political participation — useful for educators facilitating youth discussion of civic engagement.

Module 12: The Future of Youth Studies

Fissures and Fractures in the Field

A common theme throughout this course is that youth studies is not a unified field. Many disciplines — sociology, psychology, social work, education, and others — contribute to this relatively young academic domain, each with its own theoretical frameworks, methodological preferences, and characteristic blind spots. Disputes among disciplines are ongoing.

Côté (2014) identifies five competing positions or axes of tension that run through youth studies:

1. Nature (psychology) vs. nurture (sociology)
2. Stage (psychology) vs. status (sociology)
3. Structure (behaviour determined by normative and oppressive social structures?) vs. agency (individuals possess the capacity to act independently and make free choices?)
4. Critical approach (left-leaning, nurture emphasis) vs. conservative approach (right-leaning, nature emphasis)
5. Quantitative methodologies (numerical data) vs. qualitative methodologies (non-numerical data)

These vying positions prompt the question: can we even speak of a distinct field of youth studies with a coherent character?

Côté’s Conditions for a Coherent Youth Studies

Côté’s (2014) answer is a resounding yes. He outlines several conditions that need to be met for youth studies to constitute a distinct field with a coherent character. Youth studies needs to:

1. Include approaches that deal in meaningful ways with the age group between childhood and adulthood.
2. Focus on young people without getting caught up in interdisciplinary competition.
3. Have as its primary goal understanding the situations confronting youth and helping find ways to reduce or eliminate associated problems.
4. Encourage each discipline (psychology, sociology, cultural studies) to recommend its strongest evidence and arguments to one another so that recommendations can be studied from multiple viewpoints.

Côté also argues that youth studies can overcome its apparent differences by: including non-dogmatic individuals who exercise critical thinking; recognizing the limitations of theories informing the field; remaining open to approaches that differ from one’s own but may be more convincing or helpful for youth; addressing terminology differences between disciplines (e.g., how “youth” itself is defined); being open to various methodological approaches based on the types of research questions being asked; and agreeing to disagree where necessary, recognizing that multiple interpretations can be adjudicated empirically.

He is realistic that overcoming these differences will not happen overnight, yet he remains optimistic about the future of youth studies as a field with a coherent, distinctive character oriented toward understanding and improving the lives of young people.

Key Theorists at a Glance

Glossary of Key Terms

Adolescence — The life stage coined by G. Stanley Hall (1904), characterized in his theory by “storm and stress” and biological turmoil. Critiqued by sociologists as a socially constructed status rather than a universal biological stage.

Agency — The capacity of individuals to act independently and make their own choices, as opposed to being determined purely by social structure.

Arrested or Delayed Development — Côté and Allahar’s theory that the prolonged youth period is linked to mass education and credentialism rather than a new developmental stage.

Atheoretical — Free from paradigm assumptions; used to describe interactionist and grounded theory approaches in youth studies.

Authoritative Parenting — A parenting style high on both demandingness and responsiveness, associated by research with the best developmental outcomes for youth.

Banking Model of Education — Freire’s term for traditional pedagogy that treats students as empty vessels to be “filled” with knowledge by teachers.

Biphobia — Aversion or prejudice directed at bisexual people.

Concerted Cultivation — Lareau’s term for the middle-class parenting practice of driving children to numerous extracurricular activities, encouraging them to advocate for themselves, and involving them in family negotiations.

Consensus Theory of Truth — A theory gains credibility partly because a significant number of scholars find its logic sound.

Correspondence Theory of Truth — Empirical tests of a theory build evidence about the extent to which it corresponds to empirical reality.

Credentialism Paradox — The phenomenon (Côté, 2014) in which credentials have little direct relationship to work eventually performed, but without credentials one’s employability is jeopardized.

Critical Youth Studies — An approach that challenges the injustice of youth infantilization and examines adolescence as a social rather than purely psychological stage.

Culture Jamming — A form of youth-led activism that subverts or disrupts mainstream media messages and consumer culture.

Deconstruction — The process of analyzing and questioning underlying assumptions and power structures in texts, narratives, and social institutions.

Deficit Model of Youth — The tendency to view youth through a lens of what is wrong with them or lacking, rather than focusing on their strengths.

Digital Storytelling — The combination of text, pictures, graphics, video, voice, and music to create short narratives for research, community development, and policy change.

Emerging Adulthood — Arnett’s proposed developmental phase from age 18–25 characterized by identity exploration, instability, self-focus, feeling in-between, and possibilities.

Essentialist View of Youth — The assumption that there is something in the essence of being young that inevitably produces certain results (e.g., immaturity, irresponsibility).

False Consciousness — A Marxist concept used by political economists in youth studies to describe how youth are pressured to work against their own interests (e.g., believing in meritocracy while structural inequalities remain unaddressed).

Functionalism — A sociological perspective that views social institutions as serving necessary functions for social stability; in education, it sees schooling as socializing youth into adult roles and maintaining the social order.

Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) — Official student clubs with LGBTQ+ and heterosexual membership that provide safe spaces and work toward making schools more welcoming for sexual and gender minority students. Legally mandated in all publicly funded Ontario schools.

Gender Identity — The personal feeling of being a man, a woman, or neither; may or may not correspond to sex designated at birth.

Gender Non-Conforming / Gender Queer — Describing a person who does not identify as a man or a woman.

Grand Theory — Large-scale theoretical frameworks that attempt to explain broad aspects of society; youth studies scholars tend to distance themselves from grand theory in favour of middle-range approaches.

Grounded Theory — A research methodology that allows theory to emerge from data rather than imposing theory on data; atheoretical in that it does not begin with pre-existing paradigm assumptions.

Homophobia — Aversion or prejudice directed at gay, lesbian, or bisexual people.

Intersectionality — The framework for understanding how multiple axes of identity (race, gender, class, sexual orientation, ability) interact to shape experiences of privilege and disadvantage.

Late Modernist Approach — A sociological perspective holding that youth today have more freedom but less guidance, and are “increasingly floundering” without normative structures.

McJob — A term for service-sector employment characterized by low pay, low prestige, minimal skill requirements, and few advancement opportunities.

Meritocracy — The belief that people are rewarded for their ability and that hard work leads to success; critiqued by conflict theorists as a myth obscuring structural inequality.

Middle Range Theory — Theories that focus on specific phenomena rather than attempting to explain all of social life; dominant in youth studies.

Nature vs. Nurture — The fundamental debate in youth studies between biological determinism (psychology) and social constructionism (sociology) as explanations for youth behaviour and development.

Neoliberal Paradigm — A political-economic framework that shifts fiscal responsibility from governments to individuals; in education, it means youth bear increasing costs of education while structural supports are withdrawn.

Participatory Action Research (PAR) — A research approach that actively involves participants in the research process; Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR) applies this to youth populations.

Political Economy of Youth — Côté’s approach examining the changing economic opportunities of young people relative to other age groups, including analysis of unemployment, credentialism, and class reproduction.

Positive Youth Development — Lerner’s proposed shift in emphasis from studying “problem youth” to foregrounding the strengths and possibilities of young people.

Postmodernism — A theoretical perspective that explores identity politics, refutes grand theorizing, and views identity as fluid, unstable, and discursive.

Praxis — The integration of theory and action; research or practice that seeks to not merely understand the world but change it in ways that benefit youth.

Sexual Orientation — Whom one is attracted to; distinct from gender identity.

Social Class Reproduction — The tendency of educational and economic systems to perpetuate class inequalities across generations.

Social Construction — The idea that social phenomena, including adolescence itself, are products of human interaction and institutional practices rather than natural or inevitable.

Stage vs. Status — The debate between psychologists (who see adolescence as a universal developmental stage) and sociologists (who see youth as an age-status imposed by cultural expectations).

Storm and Stress — Hall’s (1904) theory that adolescence is characterized by inevitable emotional and psychological turmoil due to biological and hormonal factors.

Subcultural Approach — An approach drawing from functionalist theory, arguing that postwar prosperity and compulsory schooling created a separate youth culture with distinct values.

Tabula Rasa — The concept of the “blank slate” — the idea that students arrive in classrooms as empty vessels to be written on by teachers; challenged by Dewey, Piaget, Vygotsky, and Freire.

Transgender / Transsexual — Describing people who do not conform or identify with the gender expectations associated with their sex at birth.

Transphobia — Aversion or prejudice directed at transgender or transsexual people.

Two Spirit — A reclaimed concept from First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples; refers to Aboriginal people who fulfill roles across sex and gender lines, historically respected as visionaries, peacemakers, and healers.

Underemployment — A measure of labour utilization looking at how well the labour force is utilized in terms of skills and availability; includes highly skilled workers in low-skill or low-pay jobs and part-time workers who want full-time employment.

Youth Participatory Action Research (YPAR) — A research approach in which young people are positioned as active researchers, generating knowledge that serves their communities and their interests.

Notes compiled from SOC 204R: Youth and Society, University of Waterloo (Renison University College), Fall 2021. Course author: Dr. Nicole Sanderson, Social Development Studies, Renison.