Research Methodology
Collaborative Approach

The project followed a community-based research (CBR) approach. This approach is characterized by the principles of collaboration, co-learning and action. We believe this approach is better suited to answer our research questions and allow for the necessary exploration of youth experiences regarding identity formation, with a focus on sexuality, within an intercultural environment.

Community-based research involves members of the community affected by or interested in a particular issue. The background of the youth researchers – and for that matter of the researchers in general – is important in research of this nature because of the fact that the researcher is the research instrument and needs to be taken into consideration in the process of the project (Patton 2002).

Community-based research is a highly involved process that requires that decisions are made using processes that are agreed on by all parties involved. Consensus was built for decisions, ensuring that most team members – in particular the youth group – agreed on every point. This proved challenging when not all youth could attend all meetings. Therefore, each meeting we took time to go over past decisions and open up the discussion to include the voices of those who may have not been able to give input; via email, telephone or previous meetings.

The project involved youth in a community-based research project to build capacity on research methodology and sexuality related matters amongst partners; youth, community agencies and others. Other outcomes of the CBR process are to foster collaboration, equity, and empowerment. The involvement of many actors in the development of the project draws our attention and reflection to the ownership and control of the process of conducting research, as well as the resulting research products. These matters are explored in detail in upcoming sections.

Community-based Research Involving Youth

The approach was modeled in part on documented benefits of youth participation in the research process. It was based on the initiative titled Youth-Led Research, Evaluation and Planning (Youth REP), London, Zimmerman and Erbstein (2003), which documented the many benefits to youth involvement in research, evaluation and planning. Among these benefits were the development of research skills, attainment of employment experience, insertion in institutional networks, learning about institutional context and work environment, and learning about the connection between knowledge production and community action. This research also found that when youth are involved in research they develop leadership skills by obtaining civic leadership experience, improving public communication, being actively involved in outreach, developing organizing and advocacy skills, and gaining opportunities for mentorship (London, Zimmerman and Erbstein 2003, London 2000).

In addition to the benefits that youth may obtain from participating in research, other benefits have been identified. The literature shed light on the fact that participatory research would generate valuable and reliable data and be infused with the necessary input for informed community decision-making (Fernandez 2002). However, the research also shows the many challenges that CBR with youth faces. Among those challenges are the varying levels of research skills that youth and other members of the team bring to the process. Other concerns have been raised around the reliability and validity of the data when youth look at matters that could be influenced by their personal life experiences. There may be also tensions in the questions that youth and other members of the team would like to get answered, the timelines and differing agendas, and the type of action that should be pursued (Fernandez 2002; Harper and Carver 1999).

The process and the results of this project are equally important. We envisioned this project as a means for generating insights and knowledge for individual, program and organizational development. As demonstrated by the above-mentioned research, the community-based research model provides a means by which youth are empowered to play leadership roles in addressing community issues. In addition, SERC and other organizations involved in the process would learn to provide services to better support ERM youth. The capacity-building process inherent in this project involves putting learned concepts into action while ensuring that adequate support and skills development are in place for youth leadership in research.

The Youth Team

One of the initial steps in the development of this research was the hiring of youth coordinators. The youth coordinators were selected based on several criteria, the most important being that of coming from the same population of interest, namely, ethno-racial minority youth, having experience or being comfortable working with youth, and indicating interest and experience in research.

A youth team was established at the beginning of the project. The youth team was recruited through oral presentations, posters and one-on-one conversations in places where youth meet, such as university and college campuses, community-based organizations and ethno-cultural associations. The main requirements for youth to participate were based on the interest of ERM youth in research, on the general topic of the project (sexuality in an intercultural context), and time availability. A commitment of up to a year was also required for youth volunteers to become part of the team. However, some members of the team chose to attend a few initial meetings and explore their commitment to the project, as they were more available at that time of the year (spring-summer).

In our original proposal we anticipated that due to the length of the project (3 years) and the multiple responsibilities and opportunities youth may encounter, we would face a high turnover of youth researchers. However, except for a few cases of youth leaving the province for educational or work opportunities, most members of the team continued to meet throughout the life of the project (mid-2005 to the end of 2007). Half-way into the project, a few new members joined the team.

The profile of the team is diverse. There are a total of about ten core members of a variety of ethno-cultural communities, including Filipino, East Indian, Chinese, Eritrean, Ghanaian, Nigerian, Jamaican, Trinidadian and Cameroonian. Their ages have ranged from 21-30, and there are a larger number of males in the team.

The youth team participated in a series of initial group-building activities with the purpose to establish the research team, introduce the area of research and build some research methodological skills. These activities included guided discussions on youth matters, in particular intergenerational issues, or hands-on activities to explore observation and listening skills. This included a photographic inquiry about ERM youth-friendly spaces in Winnipeg, which gave the team the chance to analyze their feelings on being observers and participants, as well as making group decisions.

These sessions were followed by a training session in basic research methodology. The training was designed to fulfill the need to develop the research proposal while learning about the principles of research. The topics of the training included an introduction to community-based research, forming research objectives, choosing the right research methods, developing of research tools, developing a research ethics protocol and creating a research plan. This training was followed by a series of sessions designed to address specific issues stemming from the data collection process, such as recruitment and interviewing processes. As data was collected, we also conducted sessions on qualitative data analysis, including an introduction to the use of qualitative data analysis software.

In order to maintain participants’ interest over time, we introduced a number of activities and opportunities. These opportunities strengthened the youths’ sense of belonging to the team and enhanced their skills. We pursued some opportunities to obtain free tickets to sporting events and organized some social outings with the team (e.g., barbecues, dinners, entertainment). These activities would happen at least twice a year. We also shared information of interest to the group, such as educational, employment and volunteer opportunities and community events. We pursued the possibility to obtain a few more hours of service from members of the youth team through Youth Serves Manitoba program of Manitoba Education, Citizenship and Youth. This program supports post-secondary students to engage in community service. Upon successful completion of at least 100 hours of service, approved students receive a $500 bursary towards tuition or student loans. We were successful in obtaining opportunities for all the applications in two consecutive years with a total of 5 volunteers providing extra support to the project through this program.

Outreach Process

In order to promote the study and solicit youth participation, youth members of the team approached youth at a number of locations. The main locations were bars, bus stops, various spots at local universities, a college and an inner-city high school (in hallways, bookstore line-ups, presentations, and student organizations), outside local malls, and researchers’ apartment buildings. Various media were also used to recruit participants, including articles in community newspapers, and radio interviews, as well as posters placed in areas where youth congregate. Most participants heard about the research through word of mouth.

One-on-one or small group conversations with youth were the most successful approaches for recruitment. In many cases, youth researchers decided not to involve their immediate network of friends to avoid introducing “bias” by inviting youth that may have similar views on the issues as them. They also felt this would minimize any risks associated with having access to their friend’s personal information or their previously unknown perspectives, which might put the researcher in a position of power. They also believed that even if their friends were interviewed by other members of the team, they might not be candid enough about their views because the information might eventually become accessible to their friends in the team. Therefore, youth researchers contacted “people who knew people” by phone, in-person or e-mail to ensure participation.

Many youth showed interest in the study. However, because most of them preferred to participate in individual interviews, we were not able to accommodate most of them. At the end of the project, we counted a list of about 30 youth who had signed up, but were not able to participate in interviews.

Youth indicated that time constraints due to family, employment and school obligations prevented them from attending focus groups. However, in addition to these practical reasons, some youth felt that Winnipeg is a small city and they were bound to see some of the potential members of focus groups in other social situations. Therefore confidentiality in focus groups was a major concern.

Data Collection

The ERM youth team was also a valuable resource in the process of data collection. We conducted individual interviews and focus groups with ERM youth. The youth research team helped to create a semi-structured questionnaire for focus groups and interviews, which ensured that all the content was covered, while allowing flexibility to ask for more detail in certain areas. We used this questionnaire as an interview training tool with the youth; they took turns interviewing one another using the questionnaire to troubleshoot situations that they might encounter, identify gaps for further questioning, and to practice their interviewing skills. We also conducted mock focus groups and introduced potential conflicts that the interviewers could practice facilitating.

Most youth team members had little or no experience with interviewing, and were understandably nervous about interviewing others on such sensitive subject. Some conducted more interviews than others, based on their level of comfort and the flexibility of their schedules. Others chose not to conduct the interviews, and contributed by doing transcription and data analysis.

The varying levels of comfort and experience in interviewing meant that it was difficult to maintain consistency across interviews. Some youth did not have the chance to apply the skills they learned from their first interview to subsequent interviews, due to their schedules and the timeline of the research. The interviews therefore ranged greatly in terms of length, and in the depth of the information given.

Focus groups and interviews were recorded on audiotapes and transcribed by ERM youth team members. The use of audiotape helped the youth team members to consider the importance of interviewing interaction and its impact on the outcome of the interview. While interviews were not recorded without the participants’ consent, the presence of the recorder may have inhibited their comments or made them more careful with their answers.

One of the many benefits of having the youth team conduct interviews and focus groups was their first-hand knowledge of similar situations and experiences to the participants. The issues that the youth were conducting interviews on were close to their own lives. Participants felt comfortable sharing their stories with interviewers who could relate to them. However, this also meant the youth team had to be well-prepared to deal with potentially sensitive and upsetting subjects, and to separate their own lives from the research as much as possible. We ensured that the youth team did not embark on interviews until their training was complete, that team members were comfortable with one another and ground rules were well-established.

Youth team members were given a list of items to bring to the interview in order to facilitate the interview process. This included the consent forms, recording equipment and a resource sheet we created on the organizations and agencies that offer counseling and other services for youth.

The interviews and focus groups took place between the summer of 2006 and the spring of 2007. The team conducted 19 individual interviews, and four focus group interviews with a total of 16 participants.

We discussed in the previous section some of the limitations in reaching youth for focus group interviews. We insisted on conducting a few focus groups and were able to do so. However, one of the challenges that we faced was the low attendance of youth. Last minute changes in their schedules were the main reasons for not attending the group. We also believe that the fact that we were not providing an honorarium may have also been a factor. It appears that other researchers involving immigrant or minority youth have faced the same challenge (Peera 2003).


Data Management and Analysis

All interviews were recorded and transcribed. The project coordinator, members of the youth research team or youth collaborators to the project transcribed the interviews. The project coordinator and other members of the team checked the transcripts for accuracy.

In our attempt to enhance our team’s research capacity, the data analysis process provided room for discussion of the interviewing process, skills that are recognized as good practice and others that require improvement. For this, we developed a series of mechanisms to ensure a climate of respectful learning within the team. For instance, we decided to avoid including the names of interviewers in the transcripts.

These matters were incorporated in the discussions on data analysis. Further information on the data collection process was gathered through an observation sheet. This was used by each interviewer and included a self-reflection on any contextual and personal interaction issues that may have unfolded during the interviewing process. This was meant also as a debriefing tool with project coordinators. The tool was designed to assist with continual improvement of interviewing skills. These methods helped the youth team to reflect on the interview process as a team, as well as individually.

After data was transcribed, the youth team helped with data analysis. They identified relevant themes in the research, often using their own first-hand knowledge of the issues being researched. They then read through interviews and marked the areas that related to each theme. From this analysis we were able to establish initial findings that helped to create the framework of the report.

With these initial findings, we then held feedback sessions in April 2007 with former interview and focus group participants to ensure that the information gathered was complete and representative. Two feedback sessions were held and information gathered about the participants’ reactions to the preliminary findings. Participants were given the chance to comment on what stood out for them in the research, and we gathered more information from them about the impacts of peers on their self-identification, racial stereotypes and their impact on sexuality, and the participants’ feelings about homosexuality and homophobia.

The feedback sessions helped to confirm the accuracy of the information collected while also giving us a more in-depth discussion and analysis around some common areas of interest and concern.

The youth team discussed the dissemination and authorship, including ownership of the project by the sponsoring agency, of the final report. There was caution in the group regarding having their full names associated with the project, because some participants and team members did not fully disclose their participation in a project associated with SERC. The name of the agency may have had negative connotations among members of ethno-cultural communities, making it difficult for youth to talk about the project.

Conducting social research was not the focus of existence of youth team members, who were pursuing other courses of study, working, and meeting family and other demands. Although activities such as conducting interviews, regular meetings, and personal contacts helped to keep the team involved, it was hard to maintain a close focus on the data at all times. However, this may well be the case for single researchers or those hired to conduct a research project. The youth team remained committed to the topic of the research because of their close experience and “insider knowledge”, as well as to gain volunteer experience.

Ethical Matters

As another step in the learning process for conducting research we had to delve into any ethical matters concerning this research. As part of this process, the team decided to obtain ethics approval from a local university. One of the academic members of the Project Advisory Group supported the submission to the Joint Faculty Ethics Review Board of the University of Manitoba.

Originally, we decided to invite youth between the ages of 15 to 24. Including underage youth in the research meant that we needed to put in place mechanisms to ensure that all youth were well protected throughout the process; but especially those between the ages of 15 to 17.

All participants had to sign a consent form that described the purpose of the research, the procedures involved during the interviewing process, any benefits and risks, and to secure confidentiality. Due to the fact that some experiences shared during the interview process may trigger emotional issues we also included an information package with referrals to counseling and sexuality related services including teen clinics and Community Health Centres.

However, when approaching youth aged 15 to 17, we also had other ethical concerns to address. Youth within that age group were to sign an assent form; while their parents or guardians were the ones to provide consent for their children to participate in the research. Although we were cognizant of the potential barriers to gain parental consent based on our experience working in the area of sexuality and how sensitive this matter can be for parents and youth, we proceeded to utilize this approach.

Our experience shows that even with a large investment of resources in promotion and recruitment of youth 15 to 17 years of age, our access to youth in this age group was very limited. In fact, we obtained consent from only one parent and his son to participate. In this case, we found that consent was easily obtained because of the existence of a close family relationship between the youth and his parents, where sexuality related matters are openly discussed in the family.

All other attempts to reach out to youth and their parents failed to recruit any 15-17 year old participants to the research. Youth who were willing to participate initially, withdrew from the project when they were informed that part of the process involved approaching their parents to gain consent to participate. On one occasion, we were able to access a parent, but their child declined to sign the consent form. In two other cases, youth preferred to wait until their 18th birthday to participate. Both turned 18 during the research process, so we able to interview them right after that date.

Had we continued to reach out to younger youth, the process of obtaining parental consent would likely have made it difficult to get a representative sample of ethno-racial minority youth. Our only interview with a youth under 18 illustrates the potential sample bias that requesting parental consent within this youth population may have produced. Due to the need for parental consent, we would likely have recruited mostly youth who were able and comfortable to communicate with their parents about issues of sexuality. For our research project, this would mean a lack of representation of youth who do not communicate with their parents or guardians about sexuality and who experience intergenerational conflicts. Youth and children whose parents do not provide consent may be facing intergenerational conflicts as result of cultural clashes, and may not receive parental consent due these family issues. Other research projects involving youth have had similar findings (Johnson et al. 1999).

As we progressed along the data collection process and learned about the barriers to engaging youth aged 15-17, the team decided to approach the Ethics Board to request that the need to obtain parental consent be waived. The Project Advisory Group supported this decision. To strengthen our argument we proceeded to conduct a brief literature review on the matter.

We found that the according to the Informed Consent Guidelines from the University of Manitoba, Faculty of Medicine Bannatyne Research Ethics, waiving parental consent was possible when participants are older adolescents and when the research is clearly below minimal risk. The guidelines indicate some specific circumstances under which a waiver may be desirable;

• when research is beneficial to the participant, and
• when knowledge by a third party of the adolescent participating in the research may put them at risk or intimidation (including studies on sexuality)
(University of Manitoba, Faculty of Medicine Bannatyne Research Ethics, n/d)

On an international level, the Scientific and Ethical Review Group of World Health Organization’s Human Reproductive Programme has developed specific guidelines for research on reproductive health involving adolescents. These guidelines assert the rights of adolescents to participate in sexual and reproductive health research without the involvement of parents or guardians. The WHO guidelines state the need for sound research on the matter based on the parental responsibilities to provide dependent adolescents with preventive and therapeutic health care. The WHO indicates that unless there are specific legal provisions, “consent to participate in research should be given by the adolescent alone”, provided that the adolescent is fully informed of the purpose, risks, benefits and procedures of the research.

We also found that other researchers involving youth and children have also started to address the issue. When it comes to sensitive topics and hard to reach populations, Leadbeater et al. (2006) have also found limitations in utilizing the conventional ethical guidelines followed by universities.

Despite the fact that we believed we had a strong case to waive the need to obtain parental consent, this proved not to be the case. The Ethics Board decided to deny our request. Unfortunately, their response did not indicate any reasons for their decision.

Research Participants’ Profile and Background

A total of 35 youth participated in the study; 19 in individual interviews and 16 in focus groups. There were 21 male and 14 female participants. The participants were between the ages of 16 to 28, with an average age of 21.8. With regards to participants’ ethno-cultural or national background, the composition includes youth from Southeast and South Asia (East Indian, South Indian, Filipino, Chinese, and Laotian), the Middle East (Lebanese), the Caribbean (Jamaican, Guyanese, Trinidadian, and Barbadian), Latin America (El Salvadorian) and Africa (Eritrean, Ethiopian, Nigerian, Togolese, Malian, Sudanese, Tanzanian, and Zimbabwean). A few participants whose parents were from different national or ethno-cultural origin spoke about having multiple ethnic backgrounds.

Just over one-half of the participants were Canadian-born (20 Canadian born/15 immigrant). Being Canadian-born is sometimes referred to as being a “second generation” immigrant, meaning that one was born and raised in Canada. Of the male participants, nine were born in Canada and 12 were born outside Canada. The males who were born outside Canada (making them “first generation” immigrants) arrived in Canada between the ages of 6 months to 22 years. Most arrived in childhood, as the average age of arrival was 10 years old, with only three males arriving in the 18-22 age range. Of the female participants, 11 were born in Canada and 3 were born outside Canada. Of those born elsewhere, all arrived in Canada under the age of five, meaning that they are first generation immigrants, but they have grown up mostly in Canada.

Most of the participants (71 percent) lived at home with their immediate family (parents and siblings). A few lived with their extended and immediate family (e.g. parents, siblings and grandparents, nieces and nephews, cousins, uncles and aunts). Only one participant lived in a single-parent household, two other participants lived alone and one lived with a partner.

The majority of participants (88 percent) were either in University or had completed a University degree. At the time of the interviews and focus groups, 68 percent of youth were in University and 20 percent had attained their Bachelors degrees. One participant was going on to a Masters degree. Of the other four youth, three had completed high school education, and one was in the process of completing high school. Over 80 percent of the participants were employed, and many were part-time employees in the retail, service and manufacturing industries while carrying out their studies.

Participants’ parents and their families had moved to Canada seeking a better future for themselves and their children or because they had undergone refugee-like situations. Some of the parents arrived in Canada holding post-secondary education and having worked as professionals in their home countries. In one case, the parents owned a business in their home country, which they had to leave behind due to changes in the political regime.

Many parents were working in the service, manufacturing or maintenance/janitorial sector. At the time of the interview, one of the participants’ parents had recently been laid off due to the movement from a local manufacturing industry towards outsourcing. The few parents who were employed in other areas were entrepreneurs, worked in the health care industry, were able to continue working in their professional field in Canada (e.g., teachers, lawyers, doctors), or were retired. There were a few cases of downward mobility after arrival in Canada, where parents with post-secondary education could not find work in their professions in Canada.