Creating a Culture of Youth as Co-Researchers: The Kickoff of a Year- Long STEM Pipeline Program

STEM pipeline programs often include research experiences for youth, but fewer focus on youth as shared decision-makers or leaders in research efforts. Youth participatory action research (YPAR) and community-based participatory research (CBPR) orientations suggest that the quality and relevance of research will benefit from youth partnership. Because youth do not traditionally have the opportunity to serve in this type of leadership capacity, STEM pipeline programs that wish to elevate the role of youth in research must create a new culture of co-creation that upends the traditional pedagogical models adolescents experience in high school.We present Research Kickoff as a strategy to engage youth as co-researchers from their very first experience in a year-long STEM pipeline program. We designed activities around a framework consisting of six components: content, process, voice, network, engagement, and culture. Each of the six components of our framework are represented in a series of activities that include participatory research processes, inviting collaboration and valuing diverse expertise, and relationship building. To inform future programs interested in engaging youth as co-researchers, we detail the iterative development of Research Kickoff over two cohorts and describe how it serves to engage youth as change agents from the first touch. STEM pipeline programs, or educational pathways to guide students into STEM careers, have been in place in the United States since the 1970’s, but recent efforts tend to focus more specifically on the “leaky” areas that leaves some students behind (Schultz et al., 2011). Substantial evidence suggests that the period during high school is a decision point where many students begin to opt out of STEM career trajectories (Bøe et al., 2011). The decision not to pursue STEM subjects does not appear to express a disinterest in math and sciences, but rather a belief that these subjects are not relevant to one’s own life. For example, the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) survey of students in 57 countries found that the overwhelming majority of students appreciated science, but significantly less found science relevant to them personally and only a small minority indicated a desire to pursue a career in science (OECD, 2007). More often than not, STEM education programs emphasize STEM literacy and discipline-specific knowledge acquisition (Kennedy and Odell, 2014; McDonald, 2016), but rarely include the essential components of youth leadership and translation to action. Furthermore, STEM subjects are most often taught using traditional pedagogical formats like lectures and pre-determined exercises, which do not encourage students to become engaged in the material on a personal level (Lyons, 2006). In order to expand the perceived relevance of science to young people and introduce a pathway into STEM careers to students underrepresented in STEM fields, we developed a pipeline program for high school age youth. Youth Built Change aims to increase students’ intrinsic motivation to pursue STEM research and highlights the relevance of STEM skills to one’s own personal life and community. Specifically, Youth Built Change partners with high school juniors to conduct research on drug abuse and addiction in two geographically and socio-demographically different settings that are both dealing with significant drug problems in their communities: rural Appalachia and metropolitan Cincinnati. The underlying premise of our program is that by working with students on research projects that are directly tied to their lives, and by engaging them as shared decision-makers in the research process (co-researchers), they will understand scientific research methods and their relevance to solving reYouth as Co-Researchers Jacquez Vol. 3, February 2020 Journal of STEM Outreach 2 al-world problems more deeply and personally. This understanding will facilitate their professional entry into STEM fields by providing them with fundamental skills in research methodologies and techniques, foundational knowledge in science and mathematics, and positive attitudes towards research careers in the biomedical sciences. CBPR as Foundation of Approach. CBPR is an orientation to scientific inquiry that values shared decision-making and equitable collaboration between community and academic partners (Minkler and Wallerstein, 2011). In the context of STEM pipeline programs, CBPR builds a culture of youth as co-researchers while engaging them in a STEM experience that can improve STEM-related attitudes, self-efficacy, interest, and skills. Engaging youth as researchers through CBPR has been shown to have benefits for the youth, their communities, and the quality of the research (Cheney, 2011; Findholdt et al., 2010; Wang, 2006). When grounded in shared leadership and decision-making, youth engagement in research through CBPR has the potential to have a major impact on youth through the development of practical skills and community awareness, which leads to action for positive change, with improved educational and health outcomes. Youth benefit directly from the increased knowledge about and practice of research skills, the integration of research and action that directly applies to their communities, the practice of critical problem solving, communication skills, teamwork and collaboration which leads to increased social support networks via school, teachers, and community stakeholders and then ultimately to community transformation (Irby et al., 2001; Ozer and Douglas, 2015; Minkler, 2000). In addition, the research process promotes social and emotional development, increases self-efficacy, enhances autonomy, provides opportunities to explore diverse perspectives, and builds community awareness (DeJonckheere et al., 2016; Ozer and Douglas, 2015; Suleiman et al., 2006). STEM pipeline programs that provide high school students with opportunities to design and implement their own research projects have been shown to have positive impacts on youth. For example, the Interdisciplinary Science and Research program in Nashville facilitates scientist-supervised, hypothesis-driven research projects for high school students and participants get higher ACT and science test scores than peers (Ufnar and Shepherd, 2018). Pipeline programs working more explicitly through a community-based participatory research lens are rarer but have significant evidence of positive outcomes. Most notably, graduates of the Health Sciences and Technology Academy (HSTA), a STEM pipeline program that has been preparing youth in West Virginia for health and technology professions since 1994, attend college and major in STEM more often than their peers (McKendall et al., 2014). HSTA has emphasized community engagement from its inception and many projects focus explicitly on providing CBPR experiences to students (Chester and Dooley, 2011). A major focus of HSTA has been training students as obesity researchers (Bardwell et al., 2009). In the 20112012 academic year alone, HSTA students conducted 400 obesity-related projects (Branch et al., 2014). In addition to benefitting participating youth, HSTA’s CBPR projects have also demonstrated improved research quality. In one project investigating knee osteoarthritis, high school students exceeded expectations of 100 surveys to collect over 1000 in hard to reach Appalachian communities (Siciliano et al., 2018). As a model, HSTA clearly documents the feasibility and potential impact of STEM pipeline programs that use CBPR to engage high school students to conduct research addressing issues in their local community. The Current Study. Using the CBPR orientation to research, we are building a STEM pipeline program that engages high school students in research about drug abuse and addiction in their own communities. Our program is funded by the National Institutes of Health through a Science Education Partnership Award, a research funding mechanism to train a diverse workforce that is well-equipped to meet the nation’s biomedical, behavioral, and clinical research needs (NIGMS, 2018). Our program engages high school juniors over the course of an academic year to develop their own research questions, to collect and analyze data, and to present results to academic audiences and to stakeholders and policymakers in their own communities. By working with students on research projects that are directly tied to their lives, and by engaging them as shared decision-makers in the research process, we believe that the students will understand scientific research methods and their relevance to solving real-world problems more deeply and personally. This understanding will facilitate their professional entry into STEM fields by providing them with fundamental skills in research methodologies and techniques, foundational knowledge in science and mathematics, and positive attitudes towards research careers in the biomedical sciences. Although each cohort of student co-researchers participate in the program for an entire year, engaging youth as shared decision-makers and leaders from the very beginning is essential in setting the tone for Youth Built Change. Participating in a CBPR project as a co-researcher is markedly different from the day-to-day activities of high school, where a hierarchical teacher/student pedagogy is the norm. To introduce and engage youth in the new dynamic of CBPR research from the very first touch, we designed a two-day Research Kickoff event that set the stage for the students as co-researchers in investigations into drug abuse and addiction in their own communities. The current article outlines a framework to support the development of youth as co-researchers and describes how the elements of this model are carried out during Research Kickoff, the very first contact Youth as Co-Researchers Jacquez Vol. 3, February 2020 Journal of STEM Outreach 3 with youth. Specifically, we will describe the framework we developed to guide our program, the activities we facilitated to meet the objectives in our framework, and the ways we used evaluation and reflection to collaboratively design the second iteration of Research Kickoff. PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT Although considerable and impressive efforts are being made to develop STEM pipelines for underrepresented students, descriptions of these programs do not tend to emphasize the shared leadership and action-based elements that are crucial in CBPR research. To fill this gap, we developed a conceptual framework for a more cohesive approach to supporting the development of youth as co-researchers and instilling a CBPR orientation in all program curriculum and processes. Based on the team’s experience, most existing programming focused primarily on the building of content knowledge, less on exposure to research process, and rarely on fostering equity of voice or the intrinsic value created in relationship for being a change maker. With these gaps in mind, we determined that six components, working in concert, were needed to truly support youth’s research identity. This framework equally prioritizes both content knowledge and exposure to the research process. It creates explicit spaces for diversity of voice and shared expertise. Additionally, it calls out the importance of both a peer network and engagement with academic and local communities. The framework components when taken together are designed to build a culture of youth as co-researchers; supporting not the “next generation”, but the “now generation” of community change agents. Figure 1 depicts the conceptual framework and Research Kickoff activities that correspond to each component. We used the conceptual framework to ensure the Research Kickoff successfully engaged youth as co-researchers from their first moment participating in Youth Built Change. Community voice and shared leadership are hallmarks of the CBPR orientation to research (Minkler and Wallerstein, 2011), but as practitioners we have struggled to understand how to translate these principles into meaningful, sustainable elements of our STEM pipeline program. We present Research Kickoff as a concrete example of the nuts and bolts needed to connect program activities with a conceptual framework that brings CBPR with youth to life. PARTICIPANTS Our project engages youth from two high schools: a large public high school inside the Cincinnati metropolitan area and a small public high school about 75 miles east of Cincinnati in rural Appalachia. The 1500-student population of the metropolitan school is ethnically diverse (45% African American, 5% Asian/Pacific Islander, 22% Latinx, 6% Multiracial, 22% White) and about 59% of the student body is considered economically disadvantaged (ODE, 2018b). The rural school serves 354 students who are almost all White (97%) and economically disadvantaged (99.8%; ODE, 2018a). Sophomores in each school were introduced to the program by the research team and invited to apply to participate. Based on school performance and responses to an essay question about motivation to participate, program staff chose 25 students from each school to participate throughout their junior year. Two cohorts of students from these schools have participated in Research Kickoff, the first in May 2018 and the second in August 2019. Table 1 describes demographic characteristics of each cohort. During Research Kickoff, activities are designed to build knowledge and to solicit youth perspectives about drug abuse and addiction. Many of the youth involved in this project have personal or family experience with addiction, particularly in the rural Appalachian area where opioid abuse is very intense but treatment access is the lowest in the state (Rembert et al., 2017). The entire project team, including two teachers from each school, were trained on mandated reporting procedures in cases where information youth shared revealed that they were unsafe. The principal investigator is a licensed clinical psychologist and all staff were directed to report directly to her if youth became upset while particiFigure 1. Conceptual Framework Guiding the Youth Built Change Program Youth as Co-Researchers Jacquez Vol. 3, February 2020 Journal of STEM Outreach 4 pating. No mandated reporting or individual counseling was needed. The project has been approved by the institutional review board of the University of Cincinnati. RESEARCH KICKOFF ACTIVITIES Program activities were primarily facilitated by the authors, who include faculty members in Psychology and Education, an Associate Dean of Education, graduate students in Education, and a Project Manager with a background in Planning. Additional support included college students hired to serve as Ambassadors, accompanying high school students to each activity and staying overnight in their lodging facilities. Additional volunteers were recruited to help with specific activities, including a student in art and design to assist with digital storytelling and a graduate student in education to lead a research facilitation. As we developed activities to meet the objectives of the six components of our conceptual framework, we found that activities tended to fall into three categories: participatory research processes, invitations to collaborate, and relationship building. We summarize the activities conducted in the first Research Kickoff in Table 2 and describe the activities within these three categories below. Participatory Research Processes. A variety of participatory research processes were used to expose students to an expanded definition of research and research methods and to engage them in a structured format for participation and sharing of ideas and perspectives. Considering the importance of contextual relevance, buy-in, and developing youth researcher identity, we used four participatory research processes throughout the Research Kickoff: 1) Group Level Assessment; 2) digital storytelling; 3) concept mapping methodology; and 4) research simulation. Group Level Assessment (GLA). GLA is a qualitative, participatory research method designed for large groups to generate and evaluate information (Vaughn et al., 2011; Vaughn and Lohmueller, 2014). Unlike more traditional qualitative research methods in which participants provide data and then researchers analyze it, GLA participants collaborate to generate data and evaluate it--each participant has the opportunity to have an equal voice in data generation, evaluation, and action planning rather than only valuing dominant voices. We used GLA as an alternative to focus groups because we find they more accurately capture the perspectives and priorities of participants and encourage them to become actively involved in action plans moving forward. The GLA is a 7-step process which has been detailed elsewhere (Graham et al., 2015; Vaughn and Lohmueller, 2014). For Research Kickoff, the GLA was intended to expand youth identity as co-researchers and scientists and elicit ideas about working together in a successful research project. The GLA included prompts relevant to research, science, youth identity, collaboration, future plans, current program, or community context. Example prompts included: “In my experience, the biggest barriers to working together in a group include...;” “The most important BIG issue for kids in my school/community is...;” “In the next 2-3 years, I’m most looking forward to...;” “When I hear the word researcher I think of ...;” “In my world, the thing I feel most strongly about changing is...” Concept Mapping (CM). CM is an integrative, mixed-methods research methodology that uses brainstorming and unstructured sorting combined with the multivariate analytical methods of multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis to create a data-driven visual representation of thoughts or ideas of a group (Kane and Trochim, 2007; Trochim and Kane, 2005; Vaughn and McLinden, 2016). Extensive work has demonstrated both the validity and utility of the concept mapping process (Risisky et al., 2008; Rosas and Kane, 2012; Trochim, 2017). During Research Kickoff, we used CM to have youth identify strategies to address addiction in their communities. The CM prompt was, “I believe that the thing we should be doing about drug abuse and addiction in my community is...” Youth participated in sorting the ideas and resulting concept maps were generated in real-time and shared with participants at the conclusion of Research Kickoff. The concept maps based on students’ perspectives were displayed on a large screen and students participated in a discussion to interpret the results. CM was well-suited as part of Research Kickoff Day because it allowed youth to not only identify contextually relevant strategies for their own communities but to also see patterns and develop a common framework Gender

eline programs, or educational pathways to guide students into STEM careers, have been in place in the United States since the 1970's, but recent efforts tend to focus more specifically on the "leaky" areas that leaves some students behind (Schultz et al., 2011).Substantial evidence suggests that the period during high school is a decision point where many students begin to opt out of STEM career trajectories (Bøe et al., 2011).The decision not to pursue STEM subjects does not appear to express a disinterest in math and sciences, but rather a belief that these subjects are not relevant to one's own life.For example, the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) survey of students in 57 countries found that the overwhelming majority of students appreciated science, but significantly less found science relevant to them personally and only a small minority indicated a desire to pursue a career in science (OECD, 2007).More often than not, STEM education programs emphasize STEM literacy and discipline-specific knowledge acquisition (Kennedy and Odell, 2014;McDonald, 2016), but rarely include the essential components of youth leadership and translation to action.Furthermore, STEM subjects are most often taught using traditional pedagogical formats like lectures and pre-determined exercises, which do not encourage students to become engaged in the material on a personal level (Lyons, 2006).

In order to xpand the perceived relevance of science to young people and introduce a pathway into STEM careers to students underrepresented in STEM fields, we developed a pipeline program for high school age youth.Youth Built Change aims to increase students' intrinsic motivation to pursue STEM research and highlights the relevance of STEM skills to one's own personal life and community.Specifically, Youth Built Change partners with high school juniors to conduct research on drug abuse and addiction in two geographically and socio-demographically different settings that are both dealing with significant drug problems in their communities: rural Appalachia and metropolitan Cincinnati.The underlying premise of our program is that by working with students on research projects that are directly tied to their lives, and by engaging them as shared decision-makers in the research process (co-researchers), they will understand scientific research methods and their relevance to solving re-al-world problems more deeply and personally.This understanding will facilitate their professional entry into STEM fields by providing them with fundamental skills in research methodologies and techniques, foundational knowledge in science and mathematics, and positive attitudes towards research careers in the biomedical sciences.

CBPR as Foundati n of Approach.CBPR is an orientation to scientific inquiry that values shared decision-making and equitable collaboration between community and academic partners (Minkler and Wallerstein, 2011).In the context of STEM pipeline programs, CBPR builds a culture of youth as co-researchers while engaging them in a STEM experience that can improve STEM-related attitudes, self-efficacy, interest, and skills.Engaging youth as researchers through CBPR has been shown to have benefits for the youth, their communities, and the quality of the research (Cheney, 2011;Findholdt et al., 2010;Wang, 2006).When grounded in shared leadership and decision-making, youth engagement in research through CBPR has the potential to have a major impact on youth through the development of practical skills and community awareness, which leads to action for positive change, with improved educational and health outcomes.Youth benefit directly from the increased knowledge about and practice of research skills, the integration of research and action that directly applies to their communities, the practice of critical problem solving, communication skills, teamwork and collaboration which leads to increased social support networks via school, teachers, and community stakeholders and then ultimately to community transformation (Irby et al., 2001;Ozer and Douglas, 2015;Minkler, 2000).In addition, the research process promotes social and emotional development, increases self-efficacy, enhances autonomy, provides opportunities to explore diverse perspectives, and builds community awareness (DeJonckheere et al., 2016;Ozer and Douglas, 2015;Suleiman et al., 2006).

STEM pipeline programs that provide high school students with opportunities to design and implement their own research projects have been shown to have positive impacts on youth.For example, the Interdisciplinary Science and Research program in Nashville facilitates scientist-supervised, hypothesis-driven research projects for high school students and participants get higher ACT and science test scores than peers (Ufnar and Shepherd, 2018).Pipeline programs working more explicitly through a community-based participatory research lens are rarer but have significant evidence of positive outcomes.Most notably, graduates of the Health Sciences and Technology Academy (HSTA), a STEM pipeline program that has been preparing youth in West Virginia for health and technology professions since 1994, attend college and major in STEM more often than their peers (McKendall et al., 2014).HSTA has emphasized community engagement from its inception and many projects focus explicitly on pro-viding CBPR experiences to students (Chester and Dooley, 2011).A major focus of HSTA has been training students as obesity researchers (Bardwell et al., 2009).In the 2011-2012 academic year alone, HSTA students conducted 400 obesity-related projects (Branch et al., 2014).In addition to benefitting participating youth, HSTA's CBPR projects have also demonstrated improved research quality.In one project investigating knee osteoarthritis, high school students exceeded expectations of 100 surveys to collect over 1000 in hard to reach Appalachian communities (Siciliano et al., 2018).As a model, HSTA clearly documents the feasibility and potential impact of STEM pipeline programs that use CBPR to engage high school students to conduct research addressing issues in their local community.

The Current Study.Using the CB R orientation to research, we are building a STEM pipeline program that engages high school students in research about drug abuse and addiction in their own communities.Our program is funded by the National Institutes of Health through a Science Education Partnership Award, a research funding mechanism to train a diverse workforce that is well-equipped to meet the nation's biomedical, behavioral, and clinical research needs (NIGMS, 2018).Our program engages high school juniors over the course of an academic year to develop their own research questions, to collect and analyze data, and to present results to academic audiences and to stakeholders and policymakers in their own communities.By working with students on research projects that are directly tied to their lives, and by engaging them as shared decision-makers in the research process, we believe that the students will understand scientific research methods and their relevance to solving real-world problems more deeply and personally.This understanding will facilitate their professional entry into STEM fields by providing them with fundamental skills in research methodologies and techniques, foundational knowledge in science and mathematics, and positive attitudes towards research careers in the biomedical sciences.

Although each cohort of student co- esearchers participate in the program for an entire year, engaging youth as shared decision-makers and leaders from the very beginning is essential in setting the tone for Youth Built Change.Participating in a CBPR project as a co-researcher is markedly different from the day-to-day activities of high school, where a hierarchical teacher/student pedagogy is the norm.To introduce and engage youth in the new dynamic of CBPR research from the very first touch, we designed a two-day Research Kickoff event that set the stage for the students as co-researchers in investigations into drug abuse and addiction in their own communities.The current article outlines a framework to support the development of youth as co-researchers and describes how the elements of this model are carried out during Research Kickoff, the very first contact with youth.Specifically, we will describe the framework we developed to guide our program, the activities we facilitated to meet the objectives in our framework, and the ways we used evaluation and reflection to collaboratively design the second iteration of Research Kickoff.


PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

Although consider

le and impressive ef
orts are being made to develop STEM pipelines for underrepresented students, descriptions of these programs do not tend to emphasize the shared leadership and action-based elements that are crucial in CBPR research.To fill this gap, we developed a conceptual framework for a more cohesive approach to supporting the development of youth as co-researchers and instilling a CBPR orientation in all program curriculum and processes.Based on the team's experience, most existing programming focused primarily on the building of content knowledge, less on exposure to research process, and rarely on fostering equity of voice or the intrinsic value created in relationship for being a change maker.

With these gaps in mind, we determined th t six components, working in concert, were needed to truly support youth's research identity.This framework equally prioritizes both content knowledge and exposure to the research process.It creates explicit spaces for diversity of voice and shared expertise.Additionally, it calls out the importance of both a peer network and engagement with academic and local communities.The framework components when taken together are designed to build a culture of youth as co-researchers; supporting not the "next generation", but the "now generation" of community change agents.Figure 1 depicts the conceptual framework and Research Kickoff activities that correspond to each component.

We used the conceptual framework to ensure the esearch Kickoff successfully engaged youth as co-researchers from their first moment participating in Youth Built Change.Community voice and shared leadership are hallmarks of the CBPR orientation to research (Minkler and Wallerstein, 2011), but as practitioners we have struggled to understand how to translate these principles into meaningful, sustainable elements of our STEM pipeline program.We present Research Kickoff as a concrete example of the nuts and bolts needed to connect program activities with a conceptual framework that brings CBPR with youth to life.


PARTICIPANTS

Our project engages youth from two

igh schools:
large public high school inside the Cincinnati metropolitan area and a small public high school about 75 miles east of Cincinnati in rural Appalachia.The 1500-student population of the metropolitan school is ethnically diverse (45% African American, 5% Asian/Pacific Islander, 22% Latinx, 6% Multiracial, 22% White) and about 59% of the student body is considered economically disadvantaged (ODE, 2018b).The rural school serves 354 students who are almost all White (97%) and economically disadvantaged (99.8%;ODE, 2018a).Sophomores in each school were introduced to the program by the research team and invited to apply to participate.Based on school performance and responses to an essay question about motivation to participate, program staff chose 25 students from each school to participate throughout their junior year.Two cohorts of students from these schools have participated in Research Kickoff, the first in May 2018 and the second in August 2019.Table 1 describes demographic characteristics of each cohort.

During Research Kickoff, activities are designed to buil knowledge and to solicit youth perspectives about drug abuse and addiction.Many of the youth involved in this project have personal or family experience with addiction, particularly in the rural Appalachian area where opioid abuse is very intense but treatment access is the lowest in the state (Rembert et al., 2017).The entire project team, including two teachers from each school, were trained on mandated reporting procedures in cases where information youth shared revealed that they were unsafe.The principal investigator is a licensed clinical psychologist and all staff were directed to report directly to her if youth became upset while partici-


RESEARCH KICKOFF ACTIVITIES

Program activities were primar

y facilitated by the authors
who include faculty members in Psychology and Education, an Associate Dean of Education, graduate students in Education, and a Project Manager with a background in Planning.Additional support included college students hired to serve as Ambassadors, accompanying high school students to each activity and staying overnight in their lodging facilities.Additional volunteers were recruited to help with specific activities, including a student in art and design to assist with digital storytelling and a graduate student in education to lead a research facilitation.

As we developed activities to meet the objectives of the six c mponents of our conceptual framework, we found that activities tended to fall into three categories: participatory research processes, invitations to collaborate, and relationship building.We summarize the activities conducted in the first Research Kickoff in Table 2 and describe the activities within these three categories below.


Participatory Research Processes.

A variety of participatory

search processes were used to expo
e students to an expanded definition of research and research methods and to engage them in a structured format for participation and sharing of ideas and perspectives.Considering the importance of contextual relevance, buy-in, and developing youth researcher identity, we used four participatory research processes throughout the Research Kickoff: 1) Group Level Assessment; 2) digital storytelling; 3) concept mapping methodology; and 4) research simulation.

Group Level Assessment (GLA).GLA is a qualitative, participatory research method designed for large groups to generate and evaluate information (Vaughn et al., 2011;Vaughn and Lohmueller, 2014).Unlike more traditional qualitative research methods in which participants provide data and then researchers analyze it, GLA participants collaborate to generate data and evaluate it--each participant has the opportunity to have an equal voice in data generation, evaluation, and action planning rather than only valuing dominant voices.We used GLA as an alternative to focus groups because we find they more accurately capture the perspectives and priorities of participants and encourage them to become actively involved in action plans moving forward.The GLA is a 7-step process which has been detailed elsewhere (Graham et al., 2015;Vaughn and Lohmueller, 2014).For Research Kickoff, the GLA was intended to expand youth identity as co-researchers and scientists and elicit ideas about working together in a successful research project.The GLA included prompts relevant to research, science, youth identity, collaboration, future plans, current program, or community context.Example prompts included: "In my experience, the biggest barriers to working together in a group include…;" "The most important BIG issue for kids in my school/community is…;" "In the next 2-3 years, I'm most looking forward to…;" "When I hear the word researcher I think of …;" "In my world, the thing I feel most strongly about changing is…"

Concept Mapping (CM).CM is an integrative, mixed-methods research methodology that uses brainstorming and unstructured sorting combined with the multivariate analytical methods of multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis to create a data-driven visual representation of thoughts or ideas of a group (Kane and Trochim, 2007;Trochim and Kane, 2005;Vaughn and McLinden, 2016).Extensive work has demonstrated both the validity and utility of the concept mapping process (Risisky et al., 2008;Rosas and Kane, 2012;Trochim, 2017).During Research Kickoff, we used CM to have youth identify strategies to address addiction in their communities.The CM prompt was, "I believe that the thing we should be doing about drug abuse and addiction in my community is…" Youth participated in sorting the ideas and resulting concept maps were generated in real-time and shared with participants at the conclusion of Research Kickoff.The concept maps based on students' perspectives were displayed on a large screen and students participated in a discussion to interpret the results.CM was well-suited as part of Research Kickoff Day because it allowed youth to not only identify contextually relevant strategies for their own communities but to also see patterns and develop a common framework the group stories were shared, several students volunteered to share their personal lived experiences with substance abuse.These students were granted the space to reflect on how substance abuse has impacted their lives and their individual stories were also recorded.

Research Simulation.To expand youth ideas of what "counts" as research, we designed a research simulation that allowed youth to develop their own identity as researchers.Youth co-researchers were supported through a simulated six-step research process, which included: 1) Developing a research question; 2) Using core research tools (surveys and interviews); 3) Collecting data; 4) Analyzing data; 5) Synthesizing data to produce research findings; and, 5) Planning for action.The research simulation topic was "social media", chosen because students have first-hand experience and therefore had a higher potential to become critically engaged with research question development and interpretation of results.

When introducing the research simulation, the facilitator emphasized that resear h was more than a scientist in a lab making discoveries, but observations that everyone makes about the world around them.The kinds of questions that people ask about what is happening in their communities are the fuel for research.Youth were coached on how to create research questions that were clear, focused, and complex enough to not be able to be quickly answered.The next step included brief introductions to two core research tools: surveys and interviews.Students then used either surveys or interviews to collect real data about their social media-related research questions from university students located in the student recreation center.Students then conducted a quick data analysis for patterns, themes, and big ideas.The last step of the simulation was a discussion of possible next steps that could move the research to action.Students brainstormed and then shared out with the group on possible ac-for thinking about addiction across communities (Burke et al., 2005;Vaughn et al., 2017).

Digital Storytelling (DST).DST is a collaborative method in which participants use form of digital technology to construct visual representations of their own narratives (Gubrium, 2009).DST assumes that youth are capable of sharing stories and that these stories serve as a catalyst to creativity and meaningful dialogue about issues in their own community (Staley, 2017).DST empowers youth by allowing them to use technology as a medium to capture and share the stories of their lived experiences (Staley and Freeman, 2017).Therefore, we used a modified DS method as a way to create a space for youth to explore their lived experiences to develop their knowledge and exposure to substance abuse within their local community.Lambert (2009) explains DS as a way to leverage voices, images, and text to tell a story.Stories were chosen as a way to share variations of stories about themselves and their personal lived experiences (Staley, 2017) around substance abuse to elicit ways in which they can see how their voice and experiences serve as a catalyst to change in this process in becoming community change agents.

Youth were asked to answer the following prompts: "What are some things that administrators, eachers, and policy makers need to know about drug abuse in your community?"and "How has drug abuse in your community defined who you are and shaped your educational experiences?"After youth took time to reflect and answer the prompts individually, they were divided up into small groups.In these groups, they were given the task to come up with a narrative that addressed some of their responses to the prompts.Groups were assigned randomly and included youth from both schools participating in this process.Each group had about 20 minutes to develop an overarching narrative, then were recorded presenting the story for three minutes.After Several activities were designed to invite youth into the academic community and to expand youth per

ptions of researcher, scient
st, and expert.One strategy to broaden perceptions of "scientist" and "researcher" was to choose facilitators whose personal experiences and demographic characteristics are underrepresented in STEM.Our intention was to provide role models for success who mirrored the attributes of participating youth, including experts w o were young, Appalachian, African-American, and/or Latino.

A second strategy was to deliberately invite youth to the academic setting not as guests, but as research collaborators.

We invited collaboration and

hared a value for dive
se expertise through four activities.

Invitation from positions of traditional power.During the initial lunch upon arrival, two college Deans welcomed youth to campus and invited them to join the community of researchers on our campus.The faculty members serving as academic leaders of the project also introduced themselves and invited youth to join them as collaborators in a year-long research process.


Presentation of local drug abuse and addiction con-

text.A local researcher described drug abuse trends in our community and linked it the broader addiction research literature.The presentation was especially powerful because the researcher described how her

mily and childhood experiences influenced her trajecto
y to earning a doctoral degree and becoming a research scientist.Her story provided a compelling example of how an individual can be motivated by their own experiences to solve community problems through research.

Motivational presentation from youth activist.A local Black Lives Matter activist who led highly publicized efforts to make UC and Cincinnati a more equitable community engaged with participants around youth activism.In a highly interactive, high energy session, the activist presented a vision for youth as drivers of community change.She introduced the concept of research not as a subject in school, but as a tool in an activist's toolbox.

Student panel on journey toward STEM.A doctoral student in clinical psychology moderated a panel discussion with four young people who have been working on diverse forms of STEM research.Panelists included high school and college students serving on a youth suicide prevention council, a recent environmental health graduate who had done activist water research, and a graduate student studying green chemistry to reduce the generation of

zardous substances.Each panelist had sought out STEM
research experiences to understand how to address real-world problems, and each were following different paths toward success in their field.The moderator took questions from the high school students and facilitated a discussion about college experiences and STEM trajectories.

Relationship Building.Existing literature on youth as community change researchers has emphasized the importance of socializing and fun into program activities (Nygreen et al., 2006) in order to build a network of support amongst one another.We have found relationship building to be critically important in our previous CBPR research teams (Vaughn et al., 2018), so we intentionally designed activities to build authentic relationships among youth within and between schools.We also created opportunities for youth to build relationships with academic leaders at the university with the long-term goal of making youth feel comfortable on campus and to develop a sense of belonging in high education settings.Six strategies for relationship building are described below.

Facilitated team-building activities.All students from both schools participated in a two-hour session at the campus recreation center designed to build their identity as a collaborative team.Activities were facilitated by trained recreation center employees focused on bringing members of the group closer through exercises using both the body and mind.The session included activities focused heavily on communication and helping teammates feel more comfortable working together as well as activities that gave team members the opportunity to think outside-the-box to achieve team goals.

Shared meals.Sharing meals is an opportunity for youth to discus concerns, reflect on their day, and share experiences (Neely et al., 2014).Informal conversations can play a significant part in relationship building and when accompanied by food it can serve as a way to bring young people together in a space where they are comfortable sharing ideas, having fun, and having meaningful conversations (Neely et al., 2014).We purposely did not structure activities during most breakfast, lunches, dinner, and designated snack times to allow students to connect more naturally.

Movie and discussion.At the end of the first day, students from both Manchester and Princeton screened the movie Black Panther, which had coincidently been released on DVD just days before.While the screening was somewhat informal, leaving time for students to eat snacks and relax after an action-packed day, the students participated in a discussion facilitated by undergraduate student ambassadors after the movie ended.The discussion centered on how the movie addressed ideas of community improvement and collaboration and prompted them draw parallels between the movie and their own communities.

Residential overnights.Youth from both schools along with teachers and the peer mentors spent the night in an on campus residential hall.They were all located on two floors with two teachers and two peer mentors assigned to each floor.The majority of the students had not been on a college campus before, so the overnight stay in the residence hall created a unique shared experience.By participating in an overnight stay on a college campus, they were able to picture themselves on campus, engage in informal conversation and interactions with teachers, UC student Ambassadors, and peers from both schools.Staying overnight in the same space allowed for interactions to occur between individuals they may have not had the opportunity to otherwise.Many of the students across schools were able to then connect via social media and/or exchange numbers which fostered continued relationships outside of the Research Kickoff experience.

Near-peer mentorship.Mentorship is a social strategy that engages youth in practices that can benefit them socially, personally, academically, professionally, and emotionally (MacCallum and Beltman, 2003).Peer mentoring allows a "reciprocal relationship" to occur that is beneficial both to the mentor and mentee (Haggard et al., 2011).Four current undergraduate students at the university that were majoring in STEM fields were hired to serve as peer mentors.These students were responsible for staying in the residence hall, sharing their lived experiences as a student and STEM major, assisting in the facilitation of activities, and providing guidance and leadership to the youth during their stay.Students were recruited through the College of Arts and Sciences and participated in a one hour training session to become familiarized with the agenda and understand their role as supporters of youth participation.

Capturing and sharing the story.A representative from UC's College of Arts and Sciences media team attended Research Kickoff Day to take photographs and write an article about the event, which was published in the News and Events section on the University's Arts and Sciences website (Jackson, 2018).The article introduced youth as researchers to the University community.Additionally, we wrote a blog post for the website of The Cincinnati Project, a local initiative designed to expand knowledge of the social dynamics of u ban places (Deters, 2018).The Cincinnati Project serves as a collective for local stakeholders interested in community-engaged research, so the blog helped increase awareness of the project among those outside of the University community.


ITERATIVE PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT

Our program uses a collaborative approach to iterative program development to ensure Research Kickoff is successful in meaningfully engaging high school students as drug abuse and addiction researchers.In the summer before Year 2 Research Kickoff, we held a day-long retreat attended by program staff, teachers, and ten students who participated in Cohort 1 of the program (five from each school).Program staff presented participant evaluations of Research Kickoff and the team generated alternative strategies to best capitalize on strengths and mitigate weaknesses.The team also problem-solved issues to address changes in logistics.Year 1 evaluatio results are presented, followed by a description of collaboratively adapted Year 2 activities.

Evaluating Research Kickoff -Year 1.Just before leaving Research Kickoff, youth were given a web link to a 5-item Qualtrics survey on their mobile device.Students who did not have a phone were given an iPad with the survey already prompted.The web-based method of evaluation proved very feasible; 100% of participants completed the assessment.Students were asked "In your opinion, how did the Research Kickoff go?Move the slider below from 0 (Not good at all) to 100 (Super awesome)."To rate their own engagement, students were asked "How much would you say YOU got involved in the activities?Move the slider from 0 (I just showed up) to 100 (I was totally into it)."In th

e open-ended items, students w
re asked to describe the best thing about the Kickoff, recommendations for the future, and any other information they wanted to share.Open-ended responses were coded by major themes.

Average overall rating of the Research Kickoff was 77.11 (SD=17.08).Average self-report of engagement was 77.47 (SD=19.85).When describing what they liked most about the program, students most often described group activities, meeting new people, and hearing new perspectives from other youth.Participating in research activities and learning new information was also identified as important components.The college campus setting, including dorms and activities around campus, was also valued.When asked for recommendations for the future of the program, the most-cite recommendation mentioned more interactive, fun, engaging activities that required more movement and no lectures.Other factors mentioned included less scheduled time or more breaks and warmer rooms.

Youth also shared their perspectives on Research Kickoff when they participated in focus groups at the end of Year 1. External evaluators conducted five focus groups with members of Cohort 1 for one hour during Dissemination Day, the final event in the program (N=40).Evaluators prompted students on all aspects of their experience and the most salient theme to emerge was Research Kickoff as a strength of their experience in the program.Three factors were identified as most the most valuable aspects of the event.First, students relished the exposure to a college campus.One student said, "the sleepover was like a once in a lifetime experience really because I've never done anything like this "The opportunity to not only spend time on campus but engage with the university community was highly valued.Second, the students felt that interacting the researchers and other members of the project team helped prepare them for their time in the program.In fact, the most commonly cited request was more time with the university-based project team.Third, students enjoyed time with peers at their school and meeting students from the partner school.Youth so appreciated peer interaction and collaboration they asked to add additional events similar to Research Kickoff throughout the year to facilitate collaboration.

Two major lessons emerged from evaluations and reflections by the project team, teachers, and participating teens.First, youth were most motivated by the opportunity to meaningfully engage with their peers.Although youth knew they were signing up to do research about drug abuse and addiction in their own communities, the part of the program they most enjoyed was interacting with and learning from other youth.We believe this feedback reinforces the critical importance of voice, networking, and engagement in the conceptual framework of our STEM pipeline program.Youth are approaching research from the very beginning as team scientists, placing value on the relationships with other team members and their communities at the forefront of their work.These relational skills are fundamental to team science (Tebes et al., 2014), but are not usually included in research training.Youth feedback has inspired us to "double down" on our conceptual framework and rework Research Kickoff to ensure that voice, networking, and/or engagement is integrated into each program activity.On a related note, the other major theme emphasized in youth evaluations was the desire for less lectures and more fun activities.Despite our efforts to make each activity highly interactive and engaging, youth perceived some of these efforts as "lecturing" that were not interesting enough to keep their attention.We took this feedback, together with the youth's appreciation for interactive, relationa activities, and replaced purely instructional sections (e.g., those that include more than 10 minutes of instructor-led speaking) with more small-group activities that required youth to more actively engage in discussions.

Designing Year 2 Research Kickoff.Year 2 Research Kickoff activities were organized around the original conceptual framework described in Figure 1.Most activities remained the same but were revamped.For example, we brought in STEM graduate students to assist in the research simulation to ensure that YBC students had the support they needed to carry out their simulated project.Also, rather than a panel of undergraduate student researchers answering questions, eight graduate student researchers presented posters describing their work in order to expose YBC to dissemination processes by young scientists.Several other activities were replaced in response to student feedback requesting more networking and less lecture.For example, we replaced the movie and facilitated discussion with a more active scavenger hunt activity that allowed students to engage in the campus community.We also added a session introducing youth to the schedule of activities they would be participating in throughout the coming academic year.See Figure 2 for a comparison of the Year 1 and Year 2 schedules.

We made other changes to Research Kickoff to address logistical concerns.First, we realized we needed to change the timing so that the Research Kickoff truly kicked off the research process.Due to restrictions related to the on-campus dorms, we held the Research Kickoff in mid-May 2018 and then did not see the participants again until September.The lag time allowed knowledge and enthusiasm to diss

ate.In Year 2, we hosted Research K
ckoff in August 2019 just as school started to more seamlessly move into the year-long school-based program.The dorms were also problematic because the setting was not conducive to productive sleep.We realized that we had significantly less engagement on Day 2 of the Research Kickoff because many of the participants got very little sleep while staying in the dorms.In Year 2, lodging was provided in a hotel just across the street from campus.Teachers and UC Ambassadors were also trained to provide a higher level of monitoring during the nighttime hours, balancing the desire for peer interactions with the creation of an environment that is conducive to learning and engagement.Finally, rather than choosing UC Ambassadors based on their experience as a STEM major, we recruited undergraduates with experience facilitating programs for high school youth.We hired six ambassadors instead of four and provided a more rigorous three-session training program to prepare them to help facilitate program activities.

Student evaluations for Year 2 Research Kickof did not significantly differ from Year 1.Average student rating of the overall event was 75.26 on the 1-100 scale (SD=16.57).Average student self-report of their engagement in activities was 75.88 (SD=15.57).Students most liked learning interesting information, meeting new people, and being introduced to what they would be doing during their year in the program.When asked for recommendations for future Research Kickoffs, the most-cited request was more free time and ability to go places without supervision.One recurring theme in the evaluations was disappointment in the lack of time at the campus recreation center.Because college classes were in session during the Year 2 Research Kickoff, the Rec Center was not available for outside programming.Participants who had heard about the Rec Center activity in Year 1 were expecting this experience and felt slighted when it was not scheduled.This feedback has been important in our future program development because we have realized the power of peer-to-peer messaging about the program.Although we have put a great deal of thought into how we presented the event to participants, it simply was not as powerful as the information they received from their peers.Next year, we plan to present the agenda for the Research Kickoff before they arrive to facilitate more realistic expectations of the event.


CONCLUSION

In order to successfully guide youth into STEM careers, pipeline programs must do much mor than provide STEM content.Youth must see a place for themselves as researchers and feel that their voice is necessary in finding solutions to the problems they observe in their own communities.STEM pipeline programs must be intentional in both content and process to ensure that youth not only get STEM knowledge, but receive it in a way that is relevant to their own lives and has more potential to change their trajectories.

Research Kickoff is an event that positions youth to envision themselves as change agents in their communities in preparation for a year-long STEM pipeline program.Research Kickoff is not a stand-alone event; instead, it is the stepping stone toward youth seeing research as a way to understand and influence their world.We aim to motivate a change in perspective that brings youth from passive recipients of knowledge to providers of essential voices in the fight against drug abuse and addiction in their communities.To motivate paradigm shift, we created a framework consisting of six components: content, process, voice, network, engagement, and culture.We used participatory strategies that gather experiences and expertise that will fuel the research youth engage in throughout the program, invite youth to collaborate with a diverse and inclusive academic community, and build relationships to energize team science.Evaluation feedback and reflection revealed that our recognition of the

mportance o
network, voice, and engagement in our frame-work was correct, but we needed to further emphasize relationship building and interactive activities.The activities of Research Kickoff, particularly those that intentionally promote the voice of youth in team science, were a successful strategy to set the stage for youth as co-researchers in a yearlong STEM pipeline program.

Figure 1 .
1
Figure 1.Conceptual Framework Guiding the Youth Built Change Program


Figure 2 .
2
Figure 2. Schedule of Research Kickoff Activities Year 1 and Year 2


Table 1 .
1
Youth Built Change Participants by Gender, Race/Ethnicity,
and CohortGenderFemale Male TotalCohort 1African American8311Asian-American/Pacific Islander213Latino202Multiracial112White21627Total341145Cohort 2African American11213Asian-American/Pacific Islander213Latino000Multiracial325White121224Total281745

Table 2 .
2
Research Kickoff Program Activitiestion plans based on their findings, which allowed students to witness how research findings can assist in developing and implementing data driven results directly back into one's own community.
CategoryRationaleElementsParticipatory Research Processes To expose students to an expanded definition ofFour Processes:research and research methods and to engage them1) Group Level Assessment (GLA)in a structured format for participation and sharing2) digital storytellingof ideas and perspectives3) concept mapping methodology4) research simulationInvitations to Collaborate andTo invite youth into the academic community andFour Activities:Valuing Diverse Expertiseto expand youth perceptions of researcher, scien-1) Invitation from positions of traditional powertist, and expert2) Presentation local drug abuse and addiction context3) Motivational presentation from youth activist4) Student panel on journey toward STEMRelationship BuildingTo build authentic relationships among youthSix Strategies:wi