Bates, Samantha, Dawn Anderson, Theresa Ferrari, and Christy Clary. “A Comparative Examination of How Program Design Components Influence Youth Leadership-Skill Development.” Journal of Youth Development 15, no. 6 (2020): 91–115. https://doi.org/10.5195/jyd.2020.868.
Samantha Bates and her team conducted a qualitative study to better understand how a program’s structure can shape leadership skills in teens. They focused on three positive youth development (PYD) leadership programs within Ohio’s 4-H network. Their goal was to identify what these programs had in common, where they differed, and, most importantly, how young people themselves felt they were growing as leaders. They held focus groups with 18 teens (six from each program) and used thematic analysis in NVivo to sort through the data. They found that caring adult leaders and opportunities to work with younger kids were present across all three programs. Things like application processes, real-world internships, and youth-led decision-making were where the programs really differed.
To mention strengths, first, the approach fits the question; they weren’t trying to prove cause and effect, just to understand young people’s experiences. Focus groups were a good choice because teens could build on each other’s stories, providing the researchers with richer insights.[1] The authors also show good self-awareness: two white female researchers led the focus groups and took care to avoid bias by recruiting participants who didn’t already know one another. The analysis used intercoder agreement and team-based triangulation to ensure robust,
trustworthy findings. In Addition, the detailed demographic information in Tables 1 and 2 adds transparency; you know exactly who they spoke with.
The study has weaknesses. The biggest is transferability. The authors admit it’s a problem, but they don’t help practitioners figure out how to apply the findings elsewhere. Since all three programs are part of Ohio’s 4-H, it’s fair to wonder: would any of this apply to non-4-H programs, church-based leadership groups, or leadership classes in schools? Another concern is the sample. It includes only teens who stayed in the programs, so there’s a positive bias. The researchers acknowledge this, but they didn’t talk to any teens who dropped out. That means we’re missing key information about which parts of a program might push kids away or fail to build skills.[2]
Also, the study claims to uncover “underlying mechanisms,” but focus groups only tell you what teens think helped them. Without long-term observation or comparison groups, it can’t establish cause and effect. For example, teens said the application process helped them persevere, but they may already have had resilience or strong parental support. The study can’t rule that out. Finally, the literature review stresses the need for evidence-based program models, yet there’s no comparative analysis of outcomes across the three programs.
This study offers a helpful window into how teens experience PYD leadership programs. But if you’re looking for evidence to guide real-world practice, it’ll hit some roadblocks: on transferability, selection bias, and a gap between what teens feel helped them and what can be demonstrated to work.
[1] David W. Stewart, Prem N. Shamdasani, and Dennis W. Rook, Focus Groups: Theory and Practice, 2nd
ed. (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2007), 43.
[2] Samantha Bates et al., “Program Design Influence on Leadership Skill Development: A Qualitative Study,” Journal of Youth Development 15, no. 6 (2020): 100.