Background

According to Choi and Pak (2007) multidisciplinary approaches call on knowledges from different disciplines whilst maintaining the boundaries of each, whereas inter-disciplinarity brings them together, integrating and synthesizing so that a more coordinated, coherent whole emerges. Trans-disciplinary approaches, however, are transformative, creating a unity of knowledge and understanding that transcends any one discipline. 

Much of the research into cyberbullying (Cb)Footnote 1 and traditional bullying (C/B)Footnote 2 has been undertaken in discrete social science disciplines such as psychology, sociology, education, and health: suggesting a multi-disciplinary approach since the field emerged in the 1970s (Olweus, 1978). Recently, greater emphasis has been given to bringing those fields of knowledge together in more inter-disciplinary ways to create greater insights (Smith & O’Higgins Norman, 2021). Quantitative research concerning C/B which seeks to: examine and measure prevalence and patterns of behavior; study change over time with large samples; or develop causal models for understanding the effect of interventions (Banyard & Miller, 1998), have historically been prioritized in the domains of cognitive, social, educational, and developmental psychology. Qualitative research into C/B is most strongly represented in the disciplines of sociology and education where both have a long history of emphasizing the social contexts and subjective and lived experiences/realities of participants. However, qualitative methods and approaches within the psychology discipline generally have become more established as either a component of mixed method approaches; or as a fundamental aspect of specific areas, such as critical or community psychology approaches (Creamer & Reeping, 2020; Creswell & Clark, 2017; Parker, 2015). Kazak’s American Psychologist editorial (2018) reported a 15-fold increase in published qualitative articles (using raw numbers): from fewer than 200 articles per year in the mid-1990s, to around 3000 in 2015 and again in 2016. Marks et al. (2021) further examined the growth in published qualitative studies relative to non-qualitative publications catalogued in PsycNET and PsycINFO between 1995 and 2016 and reported a more modest six-fold increase: largely driven by growth in the healthcare (nursing) sector. This, however, represents a net percentage increase of only 1.8% over 23 years: a modest two qualitative articles per 100 published (p 6). Further to this, it has only been recently (Levitt et al., 2018) that the APA, the leading organization in defining both standards and style in the social sciences, has included qualitative research in their style guide.

Despite qualitative research practices becoming increasingly more methodologically relevant and important for the understanding of C/B generally, qualitative studies across all disciplines in these areas of investigation remain largely under-represented in the literature, in comparison with the available body of quantitative research.

Methodological pluralism, according to Barker and Pistrang (2005), does not consider any research method to be inherently superior to any other, and in particular, articulates that value arises from employing a variety of sources. May et al. (2017) report: a pluralistic study refers to a mixed method approach, where no methodological aspect is privileged over another; a pluralistic research program/agenda reflects pluralism across a program of studies by the same team on a topic; and pluralistic research disciplines are those where a balance of study designs and approaches to analyses are used in publications.

The C/B research field to date then, potentially reflects:

  • multi-disciplinarity, where disciplines maintain their unique identities and boundaries yet come together to share knowledge and understandings;

  • inter-disciplinarity, where a more coherent account of C/B is developed through overarching syntheses across discipline boundaries; and

  • a pluralistic research discipline, where diversity of approach and design exists in the literature.

Nearly a decade ago, Spears and Kofoed (2013) noted, however, that the predominant research practices in the C/B domain were largely driven by positivist-empiricist epistemologies which were situated in the cognitive, social, educational, and developmental psychological fields: where hypotheses were tested; incidences and frequencies of the phenomena under investigation were prioritized and managed through surveys and questionnaires; and relationships between variables were examined. Qualitative approaches to examining C/B in these psychological fields/disciplines remained limited and were used largely to support the quantitative aspects of mixed methods approaches: either as a follow-up to survey results; or to assist in the creation of survey questions or categories, rather than as significant data in their own right (Lyons & Coyne, 2007). This suggests a privileging of quantitative methods over qualitative in these disciplines, and therefore does not indicate a true pluralistic approach. Spears and Kofoed (2013) argued at that time that qualitative inquiry was of equal importance if the Cb phenomenon in particular was to be fully understood and that accessing youth voice was central to that understanding. They were suggesting that methodological pluralism, where no one method was deemed more superior than another, needed greater consideration in C/B field as a whole.

Notably, landmark studies, such as Pepler and Craig’s (1995) naturalistic observations, which employed methodological and technological innovation by using video cameras to observe children in the playground, surprisingly failed to generate a groundswell of qualitative studies in psychology to further examine bullying. The discipline remains dominated by quantitative and mixed methods approaches which largely relegate qualitative studies to adjuncts to the main event.

In contrast, qualitative studies concerning C/B from the disciplines of education and sociology prioritize the social contexts and lived experiences of CYP (e.g. Barter & Renold, 2000; Duncan, 1997; Mishna, 2004; Shute et al., 2008; Spears et al., 2009; Thornberg, 2011; Torrance, 2000). These studies also reflect the sociological notion of the postmodern child (Corsaro, 1997; James & Prout, 1997): an agentic child/youth who has capacity to act and make free choices: a social actor who both impacts on and is impacted by the environment. Further, the “wired/wireless” now digital child, posited by Slee, Campbell and Spears (2012, p 26) suggested a technologically competent child, who operates independently, making free social choices and reciprocally interacting with the on- and offline environment. These educational and sociological notions of childhood are distinct from those of psychology (which focus on the cognitive, social and developmental understandings of childhood and adolescence), and privilege and position the child and young person’s voice as legitimate and relevant to understanding C/B in greater depth. These discipline-specific approaches highlight the multi-disciplinarity of the C/B research field, and the distinct boundaries, yet also serve to demonstrate its inter-disciplinarity: the bringing together of knowledges across boundaries. This is especially evident when diverse studies are triangulated with each other, to develop a more coordinated, coherent knowledge-base.

Positioning CYP as Experts

Given cyberbullying (Cb) uniquely has not generally been part of most adults’ [researchers] former school experiences (Spears et al., 2011), they are not the experts with lived experience. Digital technologies now permeate and link all aspects of CYP’s individual, social and educational spaces, making their experiences uniquely relevant and important to understanding the contemporary C/B phenomenon overall. Capturing those unique, context-driven experiences is equally as important as establishing the prevalence and incidence of the phenomenon. Indeed, both approaches need to be upheld as multi-disciplinary contributions to a pluralistic research discipline: one that is also inter-disciplinary, synthesizing knowledges across boundaries, and moving toward a trans-disciplinary understanding of the C/B phenomena. When viewed this way, qualitative studies, and particularly those which position CYP as experts, assume a greater, and potentially more central importance to the field than perhaps previously considered.

Alternative Epistemologies and Shifting Methodological Approaches: Towards Co-Participatory Practices

Hesse-Biber and Leavy (2010) noted that emergent methods push methodological boundaries within and across disciplines: where “hybrid methodologies … begin to modify traditional disciplinary methods, or create innovative methods which push out the methodological borders of both the disciplines and the paradigms associated with them” (p. 2). Qualitative research practices in psychology, largely remain positioned as adjuncts to larger quantitative or mixed methods studies, where data may often be counted/quantified for statistical analyses (viz content analyses) as distinct from any thematic analyses. They are also often viewed as having limited applicability/generalizability to other settings/samples because they are narrative in style, and context and sample specific, lacking in generalizability. Indeed, Marks et al. (2021) raise the issue that getting qualitative papers published in high impact psychology-oriented journals is challenging largely due to the perceived limitations of the approaches in scientific terms, and the lack of training and experience of many reviewers in these approaches. They found that from 2015–2017, more than one in three qualitative social science articles were published in a journal without an impact factor. To this end, qualitative research has, therefore, not yet played the significant role in the psychological evidence-based movement that it could (Booth, 2001; Dixon-Woods et al., 2006; Evans & Pearson, 2001). This could be also due to the exclusion of qualitative studies from quantitative systematic reviews or meta-analyses, which seek to synthesize key findings from across several studies.

A growing interest, however, in other disciplines, such as health, education and sociology, has suggested that by combining qualitative studies in a review, the studies may become more relevant and significant when aligned with a new interpretation of the phenomena, drawn from the broader range of participants and descriptions in the studies being reviewed (Sherwood, 1997, 1999). The potential loss of meaning however, from the original study to the collective whole, is a challenge when looking to summarize across qualitative studies, so requires consideration of the approach to be employed (Elliott et al., 1999; Glaser & Strauss, 1967; Levitt et al., 2017; Werz, 2014). Methodologically, qualitative inquiry is generally concerned with employing text or artefacts as data where textual and other non-numerical analyses aim to understand the meaning of human actions and phenomena as they occur in context (Schwandt, 2001). Varying approaches, for example: ethnographers (Franke, 1983); grounded theorists (Glaser & Strauss, 1967); and phenomenologists (Giorgi, 1970) employ different lenses premised on assumptions of what is knowledge and how do we know it. Yet all generate interpretations of the experience/phenomenon, distilling meaning through similar methods and tools, and arriving at a rich, deep understanding of the phenomenon under investigation. That is, all qualitative researchers: consider actions and behaviors as part of the social process and context; acknowledge the researcher’s position and bias and reflect on it; explore the phenomena in naturalistic settings; focus on the human experiences; and start from the experience to identify patterns through inductive logic (Payne & Payne, 2004).

In the field of C/B, qualitative reviews are rare. Thornberg (2011) aimed to address this gap to demonstrate a deep understanding of the social construction of bullying, the culture and group processes through a narrative review of existing qualitative research. Ey et al. (2015) in their systematic literature review of Cb and primary-school aged children aged 5–12 years between 2009 and 2014 noted there was a paucity of qualitative research and that psychological and educational literature dominated. The focus of the 38 studies reviewed was concerned with: definition, prevalence, behaviors, and impacts established through survey methodology. Ey et al. (2015) argued for more cross-disciplinary and developmentally appropriate methodologies, especially child-centered, sociological approaches for younger children.

Further, Patton et al. (2017) undertook a systematic review of research strategies used in qualitative studies on bullying and victimization between 2004 and 2014. Findings from 20 empirical studies which used qualitative methods were organized into key areas: emic (insider view); context specific; iterative; power relations; and naturalistic inquiry, noting the two most common methods employed were individual and focus group interviews (p. 3). Patton et al. (2017) found that qualitative studies on bullying “complemented the quantitative studies by addressing contextual gaps in knowledge that link the bullying experience with race, class, gender, childhood and school” (p. 12).

Dennehy et al. (2020) reported on a systematic review and meta-ethnographic synthesis of young people’s conceptualizations of the nature of Cb, claiming to be the first such study. Meta-ethnography, used commonly in the health-research field, focuses on “constructing translations and interpretations that are grounded in people’s everyday lives” (p. 2). Their systematic review resulted in 13 studies: the majority of which employed focus groups; with three studies incorporating vignettes; only one reporting a participatory approach; and no other studies reporting the active involvement of young people in the research process (p. 4).

Moretti and Herkovitis (2021) in their public health report, aimed to understand the beliefs, values and practices adolescents mobilized in performing the roles involved in Cb. Their study was conducted as a meta-ethnography to synthesize 33 qualitative studies based on the “theoretical interpretation of their basic findings” (p. 1). All but three of the studies used individual or group interviews; one was a written narrative, one an ethnographic study, and one employed survey questions.

The emerging role of co-participatory approaches to research with CYP, saw Purdy and Spears (2020) highlight the shift in approaches in recent years which have moved beyond merely interviewing or conducting focus groups. Papers in this special edition explored innovative approaches including: quality circles (Hamilton et al., 2020 (empowering disadvantaged youth)); emergent-co/design (Ey & Spears, 2020 (early childhood teachers)); and specific co-participatory/co-design practices relative to divergent fields of enquiry (Johnson et al., 2020 (sexuality and relationships education)); O’Brien & Dadswell, 2020 (bullying and school self-exclusion)); Stehlik et al., 2020 (disadvantage, music and the arts)). In these research practices, CYP are seen not as survey informants, where variables can be moderated, mediated or manipulated, but as co-constructors of knowledge, co-designers, and co-facilitators of the research itself. This change in role also shifts the emphasis from the researcher as “knowledge-holder”, to “researcher-as-facilitator” of the co-construction process, where the student participants are the knowledge-brokers of their own lived experiences (Hamilton et al., 2020; Johnson et al., 2020; O’Brien & Dadswell, 2020; Spears & Kofoed, 2013; Spears et al., 2011).

Social, economic, political and technological change, such as the advent and now ubiquity of digital technologies, has presented multi-disciplinary researchers in the C/B domain with a unique opportunity to push epistemological and methodological boundaries. Specifically, to explore the role of youth voice and co-participatory approaches in C/B research, as it is these approaches which focus on the human experiences of the phenomena, distinct from measuring the incidence or prevalence.

This paper pushes methodological boundaries in the field of C/B research through applying a qualitative meta-study approach to five diverse qualitative studies specifically related to voice and co-participatory research, four of which relate directly to C/B. The fifth study relates indirectly, given the samples were disengaged youth, who shared experiences of being bullied at school. The studies have been undertaken by education researchers from one University who have published in the areas of education, sociology, and psychology over the past decade (2009–2021). Drawing on knowledges and practices from different disciplines to inform transformative methodologies in C/B research, this paper presents a methodology derived from the health, sociology, and education disciplines, for bringing qualitative studies together to review their collective knowledges and contribute to greater understanding to the field of C/B.

From Student Voice to Co-Participatory Research Practices

Within the context of education, youth/student voice is understood as the individual and collective perspective and actions of young people (Fletcher, 2014). This is positioned in the context of the United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, 1989) where children have the right to speak and be listened to, and their views be given due consideration in matters that affect them. Lundy’s (2007) model of child participation aims to provide a critical legal and children’s rights perspective to the growing literature concerning pupil/student voice in education. Progressing the field of C/B research through qualitative approaches which support greater application and integration of voice and co-participatory research practices to inform interventions, practice, and policy, provide opportunities for addressing Lundy’s (2007) call that “voice is not enough” (p. 1). Participatory approaches perceive CYP as “rightful and competent social actors” (Gallacher & Gallagher, 2008, p. 500). The political and epistemological assumptions embedded in studies employing participatory methods align with a democratic agenda of equal participation in research (Barinaga & Parker, 2013; Elder & Odoyo, 2018). Further, participatory methodologies invite a multiplicity of voices, whilst advocating for shared responsibility, ownership and participation in decision making (Dollinger et al., 2020).

Participatory design practices take voice, participation and engagement a step further and co-design fosters collective creativity (Sanders & Stappers, 2008) and interdisciplinary collaboration (Niedderer et al., 2020). Most importantly, co-design challenges the power relations that are ascribed to researchers in traditional research methods (Sanders, 2002), provoking a bottom-up approach which welcomes participants’ active engagement in the design process (Sanders & Stappers, 2008). According to Schuler and Namioka (1993) “in Participatory Design (PD), the people destined to use the system play a critical role in designing it” (p. xi). Thus, PD is user-centric, where knowledge is generated through the process of co-construction, and it is through this activity that meaning about the phenomenon in question, is shared, understood, and addressed. As CYP and their families are end users of prevention and intervention approaches introduced in educational settings, their voice is, therefore, acknowledged as being critical for contemporary investigations into any phenomenon affecting them, but especially for understanding the phenomenology of CYP’s lived experiences such as C/B (Price et al., 2014; Spears et al., 2009).

Fletcher (2005) suggested that when CYP engage meaningfully, their role shifts to become “change partners with, and allies of the adults in the school setting, becoming not merely informants, but the planners, teachers, researchers, evaluators, decision-makers and advocates” (p. 11). West (2004) further noted that having voice is concerned with the power to influence change. Garnering CYP’s input to understanding C/B through contemporary and diverse qualitative approaches such as co-participatory research practices enable the co-construction of meaning and shared understanding; the disruption of power relationships between researchers and participants; empowering CYP as co-researchers and change partners; and to be collectively active in the process to influence outcomes.

In light of the arguments presented, this paper, adopting a broad qualitative meta-method, seeks to answer the following research questions:

  1. (1)

    What is the relevance and feasibility of employing a qualitative meta-study (QMS) about youth voice (YV), and co-participatory research practices (CPRP), to inform methodological approaches that extend knowledge and understanding of C/B and youth wellbeing?

  2. (2)

    How can a qualitative meta-study about YV and CPRP be conducted to inform methodological approaches to extend knowledge and understanding of C/B and youth wellbeing?

Qualitative Meta-Study Research Design: Looking Back and Moving Forward

Qualitative meta-studies (QMS), an approach which brings together qualitative projects to distill deeper and more holistic meaning, are relatively uncommon in psychology, with psychotherapy being one of the few areas utilizing this approach (Timulak, 2009, 2014). By contrast, meta-analyses of quantitative studies are well recognized and utilized in psychology to provide an overview of relevant studies and to facilitate the synthesizing of knowledges across studies.

With its origins in the social sciences, and sociology in particular, a meta-study aims to bring together the relevant theoretical underpinnings, methodological approaches and outcomes from an area of study. Thereby, a meta-study is a “research approach involving the analysis of theory, method and findings of qualitative research and the synthesis of these insights into new ways of thinking about phenomena” (Paterson et al., 2001, p. 1). Zhao (1991) suggests a meta-study is a systematic approach to the analysis of an existing body of [sociological] knowledge. Paterson et al. (2001) argued that analysis and synthesis are separate processes and endeavors, suggesting that findings, theory and method need to be analyzed before synthesis can occur. Dennehy et al. (2020) and Moretti and Herkovits (2021) employed a meta-ethnographic synthesis of qualitative studies, an approach common to health sciences, using a seven-step model developed by Noblit and Hare (1988), with stages occurring simultaneously and interactively.

This paper adopts a meta-study approach to analyze and synthesize an existing body of qualitative work concerning youth voice and co-participatory research practices, to inform and extend emerging and transformative methodological approaches in the field of C/B and youth wellbeing.

Originating within the field of education, Noblit and Hare (1988) described their meta-ethnography as “the synthesis of interpretative research” (p. 10). This approach involved the “translation” of the “language” of different studies, so that similarities and differences in their findings could be comprehended and considered holistically, without losing the integrity of the original contexts and study. Paterson et al. (2001, pp. 19–112), a decade later in health research, argued that a better term was meta-study, comprising three components: a meta-data analysis, a meta-method, and a meta-theory. Six distinct processes for undertaking a meta-study were outlined: (1) Laying the groundwork; (2) Retrieval and assessment of primary research; (3) Meta-data analysis; (4) Meta-method; (5) Meta-theory; and (6) Meta-synthesis. Sandelowski and Barroso (2003) from nursing, preferred the term meta-summary to distinguish it from meta-synthesis. They employed a more descriptive approach entailing: (1) extraction of findings from the original studies; (2) abstraction of those findings to thematic statements; and (3) calculation of both a frequency and intensity “effect” size to reflect the representativeness of the findings from the meta-summary. The use of the term “effect” size is problematic in psychology as it uniquely pertains to quantitative measures. According to Timulak (2014), within the field of psychotherapy, Formal Grounded Theory approaches utilized theoretical sampling, and focused on those studies which contributed most to the building of theory, employing constant comparative analysis of data from the primary studies, and open and theoretical coding and the concepts of core categories.

As is evident from this brief summary, there is no consensually agreed QMS research approach bringing qualitative studies together. Some simply summarize findings from original studies while others employ more constructivist-interpretative approaches in keeping with the paradigm, reinterpreting the original interpretations to achieve a more holistic perspective.

This paper adds to the meta-study literature and presents the first [to our knowledge] qualitative meta-study (QMS) undertaken to review a suite of voice and co-participatory research studies to inform the C/B field. A qualitative meta-study thus offers a way of bringing multi-disciplinary knowledges together. In this case, from papers published in the education, psychology and sociology domains, in a more inter-disciplinary way: one that crosses boundaries and is more holistic and coherent. Similarly, QMS offer the opportunity to contribute to a more pluralistic research discipline overall.

Levitt et al. (2018) who progressed the qualitative meta-work in psychotherapy advocated that “procedures be selected and tailored to allow researchers to meet their specific study goals” (p. 368). To that end, this QMS calls on Paterson et al.’s (2001) broad design (meta-data; meta method; meta theory); and Sandelowski and Barroso’s (2003) notions of the: (1) extraction of findings from original studies; and the (2) abstraction of those into thematic statements. Further, it employs the constant comparative methods of Glaser and Strauss (1967) as suggested by Timulak (2009, 2014). Specifically, an inductive, thematic analysis usually associated with grounded theory was used, enabling the researcher to build understanding of the phenomena through the experiences, actions and words of the participants. In concert with Lincoln and Guba’s (1985) model, which viewed constant comparative methods as a hermeneutic, dialectic process, QMS was considered a more dynamic tool to enable the construction of a deeper level of understanding across stakeholders, rather than building theory per se (See Sage Research Methods).

Ensuring there is methodological integrity lays the foundation for trustworthiness, as identified by the Society for Qualitative Inquiry in Psychology (SQIP; Levitt et al., 2017). Methodological integrity as noted by Levitt et al. (2018) refers to the “fidelity to the subject matter” (the selection of studies) and the “utility in achieving research goals” (the process by which researchers choose the procedures to answer their questions and aims) (p. 370).

The Current Study: A Qualitative Meta-Study

The aim of this paper is two-fold: (1) provide evidence of both the feasibility and potential of a QMS approach to inform C/B research approaches moving forward; and (2) to demonstrate the process and collective findings from a meta-study of a suite of five independent qualitative studies on youth voice and co-participatory research practices. This paper provides an exemplar of an approach which rigorously synthesizes qualitative work holistically, to bring together learnings and contribute to new understandings and knowledges to inform C/B methodological practices, policy and practice.

A qualitative meta-study (QMS) involves a critical re-interpretation of existing qualitative research. A broad meta-analytic and meta-synthetic approach (Levitt et al., 2018; Paterson et al., 2001; Sandelowski et al., 1997) was adopted. A constant comparison method enabled a synthesis of methods and theories related to the use of voice and co-participatory research practices across the timeframe of the studies. Convergences and differences across five studies emerged through the process of translating and re-interpreting the findings of each study in light of all five studies. This meta-study utilizes three overarching themes: viz, organization, identification and re-interpretation, to organize Paterson et al.’s 6 steps*Footnote 3 (2001); and Sandelowski et al.’s (1997) notions of data extraction^ and abstraction#. The following plan outlines the steps taken in this meta-study.

A. Organization:

  1. 1)

    Laying the groundwork*

  2. 2)

    Retrieval and assessment of primary research*^;

B. Identification

  1. 3)

    Meta-data analysis*^;

  2. 4)

    Meta-method*^;

  3. 5)

    Meta-theory*^ and

C. Reinterpretation

  1. 6)

    Meta-synthesis*#

As this is not an aggregative study, but rather involved a systematic analysis and synthesis, it is important to note that studies can be directly comparable; or may present opposite perspectives; or if taken together, can contribute to a line of argument. These a-priori categories, decided collectively during the first round of discussions amongst the researchers, were established to facilitate individual extraction of key findings; a) ethical considerations; b) enablers; c) challenges; d) affordances; and e) limitations. Collective coding and translation of meaning across studies (abstraction), towards an holistic, critical interpretation (meta-data analysis) and reinterpretation (meta-synthesis) was undertaken. Finally, a “line of argument” illustrating the contribution of youth voice and co-participatory research approaches and practices to inform transformative methodological approaches in the study of C/B was developed (Britten et al., 2002).

The paper now outlines how the meta-study of five individual studies was conducted using the methodological plan noted above: organization; identification and re-interpretation.

Methods and Procedure

Organization

Laying the Groundwork

Establishing a research team; determining the purpose of the study; developing a research question and selecting a theoretical framework (Paterson et al., 2001).

The body of qualitative research and youth voice or co-participatory research practices the authors had individually and collectively completed over the past decade determined the starting point and the research team. The researchers agreed that this would not be an aggregate of findings, but rather a synthesis to find new meanings. The decision was made to undertake one of the first qualitative meta-studies (QMS) to inform research approaches in the field of C/B. While individual studies contribute significantly to any field, the affordance of the meta-data analysis and meta-synthesis provides a systematically developed integrated body of knowledge about a specific phenomenon (in this case, youth voice (YV) and co-participatory research practices (CPRP)) to inform emerging and transformative methodological approaches to address the phenomenon of C/B.

Retrieval and Assessment of Primary Research; Procedure

McCormick et al. (2003) in their meta-analysis in health-care, collectively analysed three qualitative studies, utilizing the original researchers who completed the primary studies, for the analyses. The current study extended this approach to a suite of five studies by educational researchers with similar cultural contexts: e.g. from the same geographic location (South Australia); with the same theme (youth voice and co-participatory research practices); but diverse methods and alignments (education, sociological, psychological). Using the authors’ original published studies as primary sources which explored voice and co-participatory research with CYP to explore C/B and youth wellbeing, offered an opportunity to: determine the feasibility of employing a QMS about similar-themed work (YV and CPRP); and to holistically inform transformative approaches that transcend any one discipline, to further understand C/B.

Importantly, as each researcher has “intimate knowledge of the events, contexts, metaphors and interpretations of their own work, plus familiarity with each other’s through a long association working together” (McCormick et al., 2003, p. 937), potential limitations regarding synthesizers/reviewers not fully understanding the unique and differing contexts of the original studies, were avoided.

As with McCormick et al. (2003), the studies were presented collectively. Most importantly, they were analyzed and interpreted in light of the other studies, so that the convergences and differences across them would create greater insights than any one study alone. Further, by having the primary researchers undertake a meta-study of their work, open and transparent clarifying discussions about the methodological assumptions and epistemological soundness of the existing research contexts, assumptions, analyses and syntheses were enabled.

Step 1: Synopses for Context

A detailed synopsis of each individual study was created and circulated, so that the research team could become familiar with the detail of each other’s work. Each synopsis was read individually in chronological order, and through constant comparison and dialectic techniques the method and theory of each were considered. The authors referred also to the published papers. Using published papers ensures quality of the studies being used in a meta-study (Timulak, 2009, 2014). However, the literature is unclear as to how to determine quality for inclusion (McCormick et al., 2003) as some claim all studies should be included, including grey literature. Study 5, whilst as yet unpublished, has emerged from previously published work so was included. Study 4 was indirectly linked to C/B through the selection criteria of the participants: disengaged youth with prior experiences of C/B.

Context: The 5 Qualitative Studies in Brief

The five studies conducted in South Australia between 2009 and 2021 are briefly outlined below (Table 1) to provide context for the meta-data analyses and meta-synthesis. They reflect innovative and divergent research practices relative to the focus on voice and co-participatory research practices over a decade of research and form the core of the meta-study. Four of the studies directly relate to work on C/B, and Study 4 engaged with disengaged learners following their experiences with bullying in the school system. The studies outlined here also represent the benchmark against which the integrity of the new interpretations are compared: the original contexts and findings. Readers are directed to the published papers for detailed information.

Table 1 Laying the Groundwork: Synopses of all studies
Full size table

Each study employed a socio-critical, discourse analysis approach (Creswell, 2008) or a socio-ecological theoretical underpinning (Bronfenbrenner, 1979). Similar coding approaches/systems for generating themes from the data (e.g., maxi to micro/open, axial, selective (Creswell, 2008)) were used, along with quality control checks such as member checking, triangulation, saturation, and inter-coder agreement. The synopses of the five studies are presented in table format below and form the basis of the meta-study processes. It represents the first step in bringing the research team together (laying the groundwork) to undertake the meta-data analyses and meta-synthesis which follow.

Step 2: Collation of Findings

Each author reviewed their study and collated their key findings according to pre-agreed subheadings: design and development over time; ethical considerations; enablers; challenges; affordances; and limitations. Color-coding identified each study in a master document and all findings were circulated to the team. This step reflects Sandelowski et al.’s (1997) meta-summary approach involving “extraction” or cataloguing of findings for summarizing and review.

Identification

This part of the process aligns with Paterson et al.’s (2001) steps of (3) Meta-data analysis; (4) Meta-method; (5) Meta-theory and Sandelowski et al.’s (1997) “abstraction” phase.

Step 3: Translation Across the Studies

Once the studies’ findings were collated and organized, the identification of convergences and differences ensued. This involved considerations of the theoretical, methodological and data interpretations across the suite of studies, which through discussion were clarified enabling shared meaning and understanding. Each author in turn, used a constant comparative process to read, review and independently interpret each other’s findings in relation to their own study’s approaches, assumptions, methods and theoretical framework. This process enabled the authors to unpack and interpret the findings across the five studies, in relation to each other study, before translating them into a collective understanding and common language.

Findings: This meta-summary of the a-priori themes are derived from the meta-data analyses and will be considered further in the section which follows (meta-synthesis). It demonstrates the feasibility of employing this approach to determine overarching key insights and learnings, from across several studies, from which new interpretations can be made.

They are briefly noted/outlined here:

  1. 1.

    Ethical considerations across time/studies

    • ◦ Issues of risk versus harm:

      • ▪ as technologies became more involved in the research practices

      • ▪ with potentially sensitive topics

    • ◦ Informed parental consent vs competent minors

    • ◦ Obtaining ethical approvals for co-participatory research practices when the end output is unknown/undecided is a challenge for ethical approval processes

  2. 2.

    Enablers

    • ◦ Multiplicity of voices and stakeholders’ engagement; multi-disciplinarity; shared expertise

    • ◦ Engaging with CYP from the outset regardless of the level of engagement

    • ◦ Artefacts created by CYP

    • ◦ Technology

  3. 3.

    Challenges

    • ◦ Pragmatic e.g., adequate time/technical issues

    • ◦ Methodological—including terminology/language

    • ◦ Negotiation—between and engagement of stakeholders, gatekeepers

    • ◦ Navigation—of power in relationships—potential for power imbalance e.g., between adults and CYP, between researchers and participants, and not privileging the voice of any particular stakeholder

    • ◦ Dissemination of single, small studies for impact on the field

    • ◦ Determining/measuring the impact/change following the co-participatory design processes – post study follow-up

  4. 4.

    Affordances

    • ◦ Co-Participatory Research Practices:

      • ▪ afford greater buy in; for scalability; for more authentic reach and uptake of PD generated outputs

      • ▪ leads to authentic/sustainable change

    • ◦ Implications of Co-Participatory Research Practices:

    • ◦ Participatory Design; Participatory Co-Design;

    • ◦ Capacity building CYP as co-researchers and co-designers and change partners

  5. 5.

    Limitations

    • ◦ Recruitment:

      • ▪ sample bias – self-selection

      • ▪ engaging diverse stakeholders [rural & remote or hard to reach/engage samples]

    • ◦ Data Collection- naturalistic settings

    • ◦ Co-Participatory Research Practices

    • ◦ Future Studies

It became evident that an emergent theme from these studies, was the shifting emphasis in the ways youth voice has been conceptualized and employed by researchers over time: from youth participating in adult-designed and led studies, to youth designing and leading the data collection processes, data checking, and interpreting data. This finding reflects Harts’ Ladder of Participation (1992), in that over the past decade, there has been a growing awareness of the need to facilitate CYP’s leadership and ownership of the research process as co-researchers and co-constructors of knowledge. Alongside this, sits the implications for furthering knowledge about the methodologies which could be employed to enhance understanding about C/B: viz, youth engaged research practices with creative and innovative data creating and gathering approaches which move beyond interviews and focus groups.

Re-Interpretation

This part of the process relates to Paterson et al.’s (2001) step 6) Meta-synthesis.

Step 4. Summarizing and Analyzing the Interpretations

Once the key themes had been identified and analyzed in relation to each other, there needed to be a re-interpretation of these findings for the field, demonstrating that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Specifically, what did they mean holistically and collectively for understanding the importance of youth voice and co-participatory approaches for ongoing C/B research and informing transformative methodologies in the field? A dynamic iterative process of thinking, reflecting, theorizing and interpreting was captured in the notes and the dialogue which ensued, resulting in core reinterpretations of the key findings across the five studies as major unifying themes.

Meta Synthesis and Line of Argument

Early investigations into C/B were predominately framed by a positivist lens, as interest in the field arose from a national study led by renowned psychologist Dan Olweus in the 1970s (Olweus, 1978). However, the growing acknowledgement that C/B was a complex societal and relationship problem (Pepler et al., 2008) provided the impetus to consider alternative paradigms to inform understandings and solutions. Qualitative approaches drawn from sociology, education and health have subsequently increasingly positioned CYP’s lived experiences at the centre of the research process. In this way, CYP become solution focused. Over the past decade, and as evidenced by the five studies included in this paper, qualitative approaches have matured: moving from simple interviews and focus groups aligned with mixed methods approaches, through initial observations and inclusion of student/children/youth voice (e.g., Mishna, 2004; Pepler & Craig, 1995), to a more holistic approach to research through co-participatory methodologies involving CYP as co-researchers and change partners.

Qualitative studies have since provided depth and richness to our understanding of C/B. However, due to the uniqueness of research settings and participants’ experiences, qualitative studies most typically are not considered generalizable or replicable. However, they are frequently triangulated with other research, strengthening the findings and applicability to practical and theoretical situations. The authors propose there is a need, and opportunity, to bring together qualitative studies that have commonalities between them, and to leverage the collective strengths, through re-interpretation of findings. This is with a view to enabling a more holistic approach and understanding of C/B, drawing on shared learnings and findings that potentially can be considered beyond the original setting of the study/research.

To inform transformative qualitative methodologies in C/B research, a qualitative meta-study, of five studies involving youth voice and co-participatory research practices conducted by the original researchers over the past decade, from the same geographic location and discipline and anchored by the same themes (YV and CPRP research practices) was conducted. Careful consideration was given to methodological integrity and fidelity to the C/B subject matter and each individual research design to preserve the fundamental underpinning of each study.

The meta-study approach employed, brings together the design (meta-method); theory (meta-theory) and findings (meta-data) of primary studies (Paterson et al., 2001). Through a process of Organization, Identification and Reinterpretation, the researchers reviewed and analysed the five studies through the a-priori coding categories of a) ethical considerations; b) enablers; c) challenges; d) affordances; and e) limitations of the studies, individually in the first instance moving towards collective and holistic critical interpretation and reinterpretation. A-priori categories emerged during the first review and discussion of the studies when considering the collective contributions that could be made when considered as a whole. Ethical considerations dominate all studies; and drawing on the extant literature concerning barriers and facilitators to conducting sound qualitative research concerning voice and co-participatory approaches, the challenges and affordances were highlighted as important. Finally, the limitations of conducting all qualitative studies were considered as relevant to drawing out implications from this meta-study.

Overarching Findings

An overarching methodological finding revealed progression in the nature and extent of CYP’s involvement. When analyzing the studies chronologically, it became evident that in the early studies, youth were involved as participants in adult designed and led engagement practices. More recently however, designs reflect a CYP-centric approach, engaging CYP as co-researchers and change partners.

Ethical concerns are justifiably a primary consideration for researchers, particularly when working alongside CYP and when addressing potentially sensitive topics. A tension exists however, when employing co-participatory methodologies, as artefacts and outputs are not predetermined but instead are products of a dynamic emergent process. There is then, a need to frame co-participatory research practices, inclusive of consent and assent processes, as a research design underpinned by an ethics of trust and care (Collin et al., 2019).

Co-participatory research practices are not considered a researcher-driven process: in that the researcher does not maintain ultimate power and control over the content or process, rather the power relationship shifts according to the emerging involvement of CYP and the content and process emerge throughout. It is relevant to consider this as a user-centric approach with common enablers across the five studies. Shared expertise and multiplicity of voices and stakeholders, despite being at varying levels of engagement, enabled CYP informed and driven solutions. Engaged CYP are solutions-focused and can reframe problems to maximize uptake and involvement of and by their peers.

Further enabling the process, and particularly relevant for research into C/B, was technology. Although incorporated, utilized and leveraged in different ways, across the studies technology enabled the co-participatory research and design processes, the communication and the development and dissemination of outputs, products, and artefacts. Throughout the studies, artefacts also were recognized as enabling in their own right: as tangible records of the process, to stimulate discussion, as a technique for facilitating communication and to enable clarity regarding interpretation of understandings and as outputs.

Challenges are to be expected when employing research designs to address complex societal and relational problems such as C/B. The researchers across all five studies noted the co-participatory research practices as resource and time intensive. Allowing time for establishing relationships so that participant involvement is authentic and not compromised by perceived or actual power imbalances e.g., between adults, including researchers, and CYP, is critical for ensuring the voice of any one stakeholder is not privileged. Unsurprisingly, resource and time constraints were a recurring pragmatic challenge across all five studies. There are further inherent challenges arising from the methodology, particularly as co-participatory research/design is an approach that aims to bring together diverse stakeholders. However, in bringing together diverse disciplines and stakeholders, differences in discipline and CYP specific-language and terminology was highlighted in the studies. Through reinterpretation of this challenge, the researchers noted the need for time to be allocated as part of the co-participatory research/design process, for participants to develop an appreciation and understanding of the process itself, and for the language/terminology unique to the different disciplines and stakeholders involved.

Involvement of CYP in the co-participatory research/design process generates some unique challenges, most notably in relation to gatekeepers. Ultimately, however, the safety and wellbeing of CYP is a shared concern of researchers and gatekeepers and provides a common ground for moving forward as part of negotiating opportunities for CYP to engage in co-participatory research practices, as co-researchers.

Also highlighted in the five studies was that co-participatory research/design practices do not represent nor deliver traditional measures or indicators of impact, in that, the extent of change is not reflected by a measure or scale. Determining the impact and change following a co-participatory process was noted by the researchers as a challenge that requires a shift in the way C/B related research outcomes might or should be considered. This is particularly relevant given co-participatory research aims to achieve sustainable and long-term changes through participant buy-in and ownership of the problem and solution.

Within the theme of “Affordances”, the co-participatory research/design process was identified as allowing for more authentic reach and uptake and greater potential for scalability of co-participatory design outputs, due to the involvement of CYP in the identification and reconceptualization of the problem and greater buy-in for the solution developed as part of the process. Across the studies, the researchers acknowledged co-participatory research practices provided a more solid foundation for sustainable change due to the involvement of the participants most knowledgeable of and most impacted by the phenomenon under consideration. It further provided opportunities to build capacity of CYP as active problem solvers and co-researchers.

The meta-data analysis revealed numerous common limitations. Managing recruitment processes to ensure diverse stakeholders, including samples who may be remote or hard to reach required careful consideration to minimize sample bias. This limitation, however, can be addressed through meta-studies that explore similar problems and topics but in different research settings with different, but similar samples. Place, that is, where the research takes place can also present a limitation of the co-participatory research/design process. Throughout the studies, researchers noted, co-participatory processes can be enhanced by conducting sessions/workshops in naturalistic settings, so that CYP are comfortable and familiar with the surroundings. In acknowledging this is not always possible, researchers noted technology, can provide an alternative, but familiar space for CYP when engaging in the co-participatory design process.

Returning to the Research Questions

  1. (1)

    What is the relevance and feasibility of employing a qualitative meta-study (QMS) about youth voice (YV), and co-participatory research practices (CPRP), to inform methodological approaches that extend knowledge and understanding of C/B and youth wellbeing?

  2. (2)

    How can a qualitative meta-study about YV and CPRP be conducted to inform methodological approaches to extend knowledge and understanding of C/B and youth wellbeing?

In addressing the above research question/s, the following summary is provided.

The proposed QMS has employed a demonstrable, step-by-step process whereby five individual studies have been:

  • organized to lay the groundwork and retrieve and assess the primary research;

  • to identify through extraction, Meta-data analysis; Meta-method; and Meta-theory, core themes and findings;

  • for reinterpretation through meta synthesis and abstraction.

By employing these three overarching organizers: organize, identify, and re-interpret, the researchers have clearly demonstrated the feasibility and relevance of this method for undertaking a qualitative meta-study approach. The steps outlined are replicable and grounded in prior studies from different disciplines and provide a toolkit/map for C/B researchers to follow should they undertake future QMS in the field of C/B research. Employing a QMS approach gives credence to the claim that C/B is a pluralistic research discipline, and is inter-disciplinary, not merely multi-disciplinary. It is imperative that qualitative studies are given due weight for their contributions to C/B research, and not be relegated to the sidelines of larger, quantitative work. A QMS ensures that small, narrative, and individual studies can be transformative when considered in conjunction with, and alongside, each other in a rigorous methodological process such as this.

This approach has been able to:

  • draw on the collective strengths and learnings of each of the five studies to demonstrate the progression of methodological approaches throughout the past decade from voice to co-participatory design to CYP as change partners co-constructing and sharing meaning as solutions-focused problem-solvers;

  • demonstrate the relevance of a QMS to extend knowledge and understanding from single studies to a coherent holistic review; and

  • extract common findings in relation to YV and CPRP processes to inform C/B research methodologies that may now have greater applicability beyond the settings of each individual study.

Summary and Conclusion

This qualitative meta-study (QMS) concerning youth voice (YV) and co-participatory research/design (CPRD) approaches is one of the first in the C/B domain to bring together discrete, similarly themed qualitative studies for reanalysis and synthesis to create new collective meanings and understandings. In doing so, it demonstrates an emergent methodological approach (the meta-study) which is transdisciplinary and transformative: facilitating the creation of a coherent, unity of understanding which extends beyond each of the five unique studies presented and the disciplines and domain in which they are situated. Findings from the meta-synthesis of the studies highlight several opportunities for engaging young people in collaborative, solutions-focused approaches to inform youth wellbeing policy and intervention practices. Findings also indicate that providing youth with opportunities to shape research at all stages of the process can empower them to design authentic preventative approaches directly relevant to their context and experiences, whilst simultaneously developing critical research and inquiry skills. It also highlights the challenges of the shifting power of the researcher’s role, from one of the authorities, to one where young people operate alongside them, as change partners during the co-participatory process.

The strength of this meta-study rests with the contribution to the literature through the methodological procedure/exemplar provided: of a feasible, transferable methodological approach for groups of researchers to review qualitative works in a holistic way, to create new understandings from discrete studies. The collaboration of a multi-skilled team, who ensured that multiple perspectives were considered through a hermeneutic and dialectical process; and rigorous, critical review of both emergent and a-priori themes across multiple levels, ensured, importantly, the original cultural contexts and nature of the studies were respected and transparent.

The decision to only include five studies authored by the research team, was premised upon, and extended previous work in the psychotherapy domain (McCormick et al., 2003) which had only employed the authors' three studies. There are distinct advantages for this meta-study: viz., same geographic location (South Australia); domain (education); and cultural contexts. Whilst the studies were all authored by researchers from education, their papers and work in YV and CPRP encapsulates diverse methods and alignments, crossing the social science domains of education, sociology and psychology. Compared with quantitative meta-analyses, the sample size (N = 5) appears limited: however, the breadth and depth of the qualitative data in each study meant that the number of studies needed to be delimited to keep the analyses and syntheses manageable and feasible. This paper articulates a process/methodology that can now be taken to the next level: where other sample sizes can be trialed, and disparate groups of researchers can explore coherent, new understandings from previously discrete works, informing the field more broadly and holistically.

The coherence the studies provide, has enabled an exemplar approach to undertaking a meta-study to be clarified, and presented and future work should build on this approach utilizing more divergent qualitative samples and orientations, as many meta-ethnographic studies have done in other domains.

Finally, this qualitative meta-study (QMS) demonstrates that the CB research domain, whilst multi-disciplinary in approach, is also trans-disciplinary and transformative: where qualitative methodological approaches from education, sociology, and psychology can now be reanalyzed and synthesized using the meta-study process outlined here: to cross boundaries to create a coherent unity of new knowledges that transcend any one discipline. Through the introduction of this methodology to undertake rigorous qualitative meta-studies, this paper contributes to a more pluralistic C/B research discipline overall, where a balance of study designs and approaches to analyses are used.