Youth participation: Adultism, human rights and professional youth work — study notes
Introduction
Defines “young people” for the purposes of the article as those under enfranchisement and/or majority relative to state requirements, aligning with Article 1 of the UNCRC. The UNCRC establishes the right of young people to participate in decisions affecting them.
The article argues that rights-based participation forms the basis for professional youth work practice.
Introduces the concept of ‘adultism’ and examines challenges for youth workers in combatting adultist beliefs and practices in participation work.
Considers benefits and limitations of participation models and explores the relationship between rights-based participation and critical (dialogical) pedagogy in youth work.
Keywords: adultism, human rights, participation models, youth participation, youth work.
Background
Youth participation is framed as essential to human rights and youth work values, with enfranchisement linked to political engagement and governance.
Governments and NGOs in the UK, New Zealand, and Australia have embraced youth participation in funded programs (examples include co-design, co-creation, co-production, co-management).
Participation is contextual, ideological, cultural, and legal; UNCRC provides a framework to structure cross-context discussions and facilitate dialogue without privileging a single context.
The paper emphasizes reflective, nuanced understanding of theory and practice, including barriers posed by adultism and the relationship between participation and youth work practice.
Professional Youth Work and Participation
Longstanding acknowledgment that involving young people in decisions affecting them is central to professional youth work (cited authors include Batsleer & Davies, Ord, Jeffs & Smith, Sapin, Wood & Hine).
Understanding of participation is essential to good practice (Ord, 2007).
Participation is often conceived as relational, collaborative, and, in voluntary participation, negotiated by young people.
The conceptualization of participation is not well developed and is contested; it is both ideological and cultural, mediated by context.
Enabling the participation of young people is seen as a key principle underpinning professional youth and community work (positive note on empowerment and rights).
Critical dialogue is a core practice within British-influenced youth work, supporting relational and participatory approaches; Freirean dialogical pedagogy (provocative questions, critical reflection) informs practice.
Foundational texts (Jeffs & Smith; Freire; Gramsci) shape an emancipatory, educational conception of youth work; youth workers can act as ‘organic intellectuals’ challenging hegemonies.
Over time, the practice has shifted from a service-user focus to facilitating action by young people to defend rights, tackle injustice, and inspire social change.
Youth Participation and Youth Work—Challenging ‘Adultism’
Everyday definition of participation as being actively involved; UNICEF’s broader understanding emphasizes forming views and influencing matters that concern them, but is considered minimalistic for practical guidance.
The article foregrounds ‘adultism’ as an impediment to participation, advocating a rights-based perspective and dialogical practice.
Adultism described as a belief system that adults are superior to young people, often treating young people as objects rather than rights-holders; reinforced through social norms and ‘othering’ concepts.
Historical parallels to racism and sexism are drawn to explain how adultism operates through cultural norms and homogenization of both groups.
Examples of adultist beliefs include views of young people as impulsive or naive relative to adults; adultism persists through social and discursive practices.
To counteract adultism, youth workers should identify and reject adultist practices, question homogenizing discourses, engage in self-reflection, and acknowledge their own limits and strengths.
Suggested consequences of addressing adultism: promote young people’s participation as a route to overcome adultism and partner with young people to maximize participation; shift from ‘getting out of the way’ to allied, knowledge-sharing roles for workers; foster consciousness-raising among young people (Freire).
Participation and Human Rights
Human rights frameworks (UDHR 1948, UNCRC 1989) ground participation in youth work; ratification and enabling legislation reinforce these rights.
In most countries, young people under enfranchisement are disenfranchised from political processes; some groups face further marginalization due to social, political, cultural, and economic contexts.
Choice of participation processes varies by purpose and ideology; funder-driven outcomes can constrain participation (outcome-led funding pressures).
Limited understanding of UNCRC rights can inhibit youth participation, underscoring the need for education, training, and professional development in youth work.
Lansdown’s critique emphasizes grounding advocacy for participation in a clear understanding of the scope of rights and obligations under the UNCRC.
Article 12 UNCRC (right to participate/heard) is central; participation supports policy development, program evaluation, service quality, and democratic citizenship.
Participation is linked to “laboratories for democracy” in youth work programs; language used to describe young people affects participation practice (e.g., terminology like “client” can be disempowering).
Ife (2012) notes that wording has human rights implications; the term “client” can reproduce power imbalances and impede rights realization.
Participation Models (and Their Critics)
Since Hart’s ladder (1992), numerous models have been proposed; 36+ models discussed by Karsten (2012), Hussey (2020), Abbott (2020).
All models are imperfect representations of complex realities; the quote “All models are wrong, but some are useful” by Box (1979) is cited to temper expectations.
Hart’s ladder (1992): eight rungs; rooted in Arnstein’s Ladder of Citizen Participation (1969). Hart’s ladder emphasizes that shared decision-making with adults, rather than youth-led decisions alone, can extend influence beyond immediate circles and contribute to democracy. The bottom three rungs are non-participation or false participation: manipulation, decoration, tokenism.
Hart’s ladder has been popular for ease of understanding and application in planning and evaluating participation projects; criticisms include homogenizing power dynamics and lack of explicit linkage to citizenship and democracy.
Shier’s Pathways to Participation (2001): builds on Hart by adding a reflective dimension on adult attitudes and positions; introduces three adult commitment stages across five levels of participation: Openings, Opportunities, Obligations. Openings = readiness to engage; Opportunities = conditions permitting engagement; Obligations = organizational policy or duty. Critics say these models can be too linear.
The Participation Tree (Shier, 2010): Nicaragua collaboration; presents a more organic, evolutionary approach that considers family, community, and organizational factors shaping youth’s ability to participate.
Lundy’s Four-Element Model (2007): emphasizes four essential elements for effective child and youth participation aligned with Article 12:
SPACE: Safe space to discuss and plan; .
VOICE: Support to express views and access to appropriate media; .
AUDIENCE: Those responsible for decisions listening and taking views into account; .
INFLUENCE: Decision-makers give due weight to views; .
These models are widely used by practitioners and policy-makers; e.g., Ireland (2015) adopted a version of a participation model in national strategies.
Lansdown (2018) offers a simplified three-category model: Consultation, Collaboration, Youth Action (youth-led participation). Useful for practical discussions and planning/evaluation tools. Examples include monitoring and evaluation tools for development projects and participatory research.
A common thread across models: the role of adults and the distribution of power; early models framed power as something adults possess and can share; later models (e.g., Shier, Lundy, Foucauldian perspectives) view power as fluid, enacted within networks, enabling both individual and collective resistance.
The paper cautions that models can be co-opted by adults to channel or constrain organic youth participation; participation should be useful to young people, not a convenient label for adult-controlled services.
A Foucauldian approach to power emphasizes dispersed, networked control of knowledge and discourse, enabling diverse forms of resistance and adaptation within educational and public-service systems.
Hart’s Ladder in Detail
Hart’s ladder: eight rungs, from lowest to highest empowerment:
Manipulation
Decoration
Tokenism
Young people assigned, but informed
Young people consulted and informed
Adult-led, with decisions shared
Youth-led and directed
Youth-led, shared decisions with adults
Hart argued that the top rung (shared decisions with adults) can extend young people’s influence beyond the immediate circle, aligning with social capital concepts (bridging capital) and broader democratic impact.
Critics argue the ladder can oversimplify power dynamics and fail to connect participation to broader political concepts of citizenship and democracy.
Shier’s Pathways and Related Concepts
Five levels of participation (not all labels listed in the provided text) and three adult commitment stages:
Openings: willingness to engage at a level
Opportunities: conditions enabling participation
Obligations: organizational or policy commitments to participation
Critics note that Shier’s approach can be too linear, not capturing the non-linear, situational nature of participation in real-world contexts.
The Participation Tree
Developed with young workers in Nicaragua; emphasizes an organic, evolving pathway to participation based on family, community, and organizational factors that enable young people to assert their rights.
Highlights that participation emerges from local conditions rather than a fixed stage-based progression.
Lundy’s Four Elements Model
Four essential elements for effective participation, aligned with Article 12:
SPACE: Safe space to discuss; .
VOICE: Support to express views; access to appropriate media; .
AUDIENCE: Those responsible for decisions must listen; .
INFLUENCE: Decision-makers must give due weight to views; .
The model is praised for its practical, rights-focused clarity and has been used in policy and planning discussions in multiple countries.
Participation and Power Relationships
Across models, the role of adults and power dynamics is central. Earlier models suggested power is held by adults and could be shared; newer analyses (Shier et al., 2014) argue that power shared is not true empowerment if the individual cannot exercise power independently.
Foucauldian perspectives describe power as dispersed and exercised through everyday action within networks, enabling multiple forms of resistance and participation.
The text emphasizes avoiding adult-controlled deployment of models; youth participation should reflect young people’s own interests and capacities, with adults acting as allies and facilitators rather than directors.
Situated Participation in Youth Work
Not all young people choose to participate; those who do will do so at different levels.
Key principles for consistent practice include voluntary participation, anti-oppressive practice, and contextualization. These ensure sensitivity to diversity among young people and avoid coercive participation.
The UNCRC ‘best interests’ principle can guide difficult decisions; benefit considerations should include moral, ethical, legal, political, and developmental impacts.
Critical dialogical practice requires openness to diverse views, including dissenting or inconvenient voices; excluding voices is a risk, and participatory models should not privilege convenient perspectives.
Practitioners should be mindful of how opportunities are framed and marketed to different groups to avoid excluding some youths who may not find certain formats appealing.
Implications for Practice and Policy
Rights-based practice should underpin youth work, with an emphasis on participation as a right and as a means to social and political development.
Policy and funding arrangements should allow for varied participation pathways rather than enforcing rigid, one-size-fits-all models (mosaic of options).
Education and professional development for youth workers are essential to enable effective rights-based participation and to address adultism.
Language matters: avoid terms that disempower young people (e.g., “client”); language shapes engagement and power relations.
Global trends show a movement toward lowering voting ages in various nations, reflecting broader shifts toward recognizing youth participation beyond informal settings (examples include Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales, and countries in Europe and the Americas).
Conclusion
The right to participate does not automatically guarantee participation; it must be affirmed and actively enabled and, if necessary, defended.
The UNCRC provides a foundation for participatory methods in youth work and for engagement with policymakers.
Models of participation are useful tools but insufficient on their own; genuine participation requires addressing adultism, challenging unhelpful stereotypes, and building alliances with young people.
Youth work should employ informal learning and consciousness-raising to help young people recognize and develop their strengths, using rights-based approaches to affirm young people as rights-holders and citizens.
A sufficiently educated workforce is a prerequisite to effective participation; the aim is to create multiple pathways that reflect youth diversity and local contexts, contributing to better policy, programs, services, and democratic participation.
While participation is a human right and beneficial to individuals and communities, there is no single correct method; the field should remain vigilant about language, power dynamics, and inclusivity to avoid reproducing exclusion or cynicism.
The broader global movement toward youth enfranchisement signals ongoing changes in how societies recognize and enact youth participation in governance and public life.
Ethics, Declarations, and References
Conflict of Interest: None reported.
Ethics Approval: Not applicable.
Data Availability: No datasets were used.
The article includes extensive references to foundational and contemporary sources on youth work, participation models, and human rights.
Key Formulas and Numerical References
Hart’s ladder: rungs in total; top rung corresponds to combined youth-led participation with adult collaboration: "Youth-led, shared decisions with adults".
Lundy’s four elements: elements (SPACE, VOICE, AUDIENCE, INFLUENCE).
Ireland (2015) national strategy adopted participation concepts; year cited as .
Hart’s ladder criticisms include: linearity, homogenization of youth and adults, and disconnection from explicit democratic theory.
Shier’s model adds a processual dimension to participation with three adult commitment stages: Openings, Opportunities, Obligations.
The central constitutional documents referenced include: United Nations General Assembly (1948) Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UNCRC (1989).
Connections to Foundational Principles and Real-World Relevance
Links to Freirean critical pedagogy: dialogic method, consciousness-raising, and reflective practice.
Gramscian notion of counter-hegemony and the idea of youth workers as ‘organic intellectuals’ shaping social change.
The shift from service delivery to empowering youth action aligns with contemporary human rights and participatory democracy ideals.
The tension between rights-based participation and funder-driven outcomes highlights the need for reflexive practice and policy design that respects youth agency.
The discussion of power, language, and categorization (e.g., ‘client’) has practical implications for how youth services are structured and evaluated in real settings.
This set of notes captures the major and minor points across the provided transcript, including definitions, models, critical perspectives, practical implications, and the ethical/policy context relevant to youth participation and professional youth work.