FYP Slay Index

OG: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EwhrtIWKesEEAFbX67-7KXGE944tzLMB3TTZ3nRyTsc/edit?tab=t.0

Overarching Aim

To understand how personal experiences and motivational drivers shape the journeys of youth mental health advocates and to identify the key supports and resources these advocates need to sustain and scale their impact—thus informing the design of targeted solutions for future youth change agents.

1. Research Questions

1. Personal Experience and Advocacy Trajectory

How do the personal histories of youth advocates (encompassing the “4 Ls” of Lived, Loved, Labored, Learnt) influence their decision to become mental health activists?

2. Motivational Mechanisms (COM-B)

In what ways do elements of Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation foster or hinder the advocacy behaviors (B) of youth activists over time, and how do these factors interact in different cultural contexts?

3. Identifying Advocates’ Needs

What specific supports, resources, or capacities do youth advocates identify as crucial to initiating and sustaining their activism?

- Examples: Mentorship, funding, training, community support, mental health resources, policy literacy, etc.

4. Designing Solutions for Future Advocates

Based on youth advocates’ journeys and identified needs, which types of interventions or system-level changes would most effectively enable more youth to engage in mental health activism and leadership roles?

5. Cross-Cultural and Intersectional Dimensions

How do intersectional identities (e.g., race, gender, socio-economic status) and cultural norms shape both the barriers and enablers of effective youth advocacy, and how might solutions be adapted to address these contextual nuances?

2. Literature Review and Rationale

FYP Slay Index: Literature Review

3. Proposed Methods

3.1 Study Design and Participants

• Sampling:

• Purposefully recruit 20–30 youth mental health advocates, ensuring representation from multiple regions (e.g., Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America).

• Strive for diversity in age, gender, socio-economic status, and advocacy focus (e.g., policy, community outreach, digital campaigns).

• Ethical Considerations:

• Informed consent for all participants, with optional anonymity/pseudonyms.

• Protocols for emotional support if sensitive topics arise.

3.2 Data Collection

1. Narrative Interviews (3 Phases)

FYP Slay Index Interview Protocol

• Phase 1 (Baseline): Explore personal backgrounds, catalysts for advocacy, experiences with mental health, and initial resource needs.

• Phase 2 (Midpoint, ~6–8 months): Revisit changes in motivation, new barriers or enablers, emerging or unmet needs.

• Phase 3 (End, ~12–15 months): Capture reflective insights, shifts in personal or professional identity, and updated viewpoints on required supports.

2. Needfinding Dialogue and Cards

• Method: Introduce a “needs card-sorting” exercise (virtual or in-person), where participants rank or group the types of support they find most critical (e.g., mentorship, funding, policy knowledge, mental health coping tools).

• Purpose: Generate specific, structured data on the hierarchy of needs and possible solutions for each advocate.

3. Observational Data

• If feasible, gather field notes or observation data during relevant advocacy events, online community interactions, or workshop sessions.

• Rationale: Complement narratives with real-time evidence of how youth navigate their environment (e.g., do they have easy access to mentors or not?).

3.3 Data Analysis

1. Narrative Analysis

• Inductive Coding: Identify emergent themes and personal stories from transcripts.

• Deductive Mapping: Relate themes back to COM-B (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation—>Behavior) and the 4 Ls (Lived, Loved, Labored, Learnt).

• Intersectional Lens: Group narratives by intersectional identities (e.g., region + gender) to note differences or commonalities in resource needs.

2. Thematic Analysis of Needfinding Data

• Compile the results from the card-sorting or “needs ranking” exercises.

• Identify patterns or clusters (e.g., do participants overwhelmingly cite ‘peer mentorship’ as a top resource?).

• Synthesize these into a “needs matrix” that can inform solution designs.

3. Longitudinal Comparison

• Compare participants’ responses across the three time-points to see how needs evolve and how personal motivation interacts with discovered or newly provided resources.

4. Anticipated Contributions and Actionable Outputs

1. Identification of Key Leverage Points

• The project clarifies when youth need certain supports the most—e.g., early-stage training vs. ongoing peer mentorship.

• This evidence can guide youth-serving organizations to allocate resources more effectively.

2. Youth Advocacy Toolkit or Support Framework

• Develop a publicly available toolkit summarizing the main types of support needed at each phase of an advocate’s journey, grounded in the COM-B and 4 Ls frameworks.

• Include recommendations for policy-makers, educational institutions, and NGOs on how to nurture youth activism.

3. Cross-Cultural Insights

• Generate comparative analyses illustrating how cultural contexts shape youth advocacy needs, highlighting successful localized strategies that could be adapted globally.

• Offer a basis for equitable policy solutions that respect diverse intersectional realities.

4. Academic Outputs and Knowledge Sharing

• Journal Articles: Focus on theoretical advancements (e.g., refining COM-B applications) and intersectional frameworks in youth mental health advocacy.

• Conference Presentations: Share both the narrative findings and practical solution prototypes at forums on youth mental health, activism, or participatory research.

5. Longer-Term PAR or Implementation

• Findings from the needfinding element can feed into a subsequent Participatory Action Research phase or direct collaboration with partner organizations, ensuring that insights translate into on-the-ground interventions.

Select Additional References

• Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 8(1), 30–35.

• Bessant, J. (2020). Young people, politics and the micro-foundations of civic life. Australian Journal of Political Science, 55(1), 49–64.

• Christens, B. D., & Dolan, T. (2011). Interweaving youth development, community development, and social change through youth organizing. Youth & Society, 43(2), 528–548.

• Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139–167.

• Hart, R. (1992). Children’s participation: From tokenism to citizenship. UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.

• Hoppe, R. (2019). Perspectives on lived experience: Emerging frameworks for mental health research. Social Science & Medicine, 233, 7–14.

• McMahon, T., et al. (2020). Applying COM-B to activism behaviors: Youth climate activism as a health behavior. Health Education & Behavior, 47(6), 971–978.

• Meeus, W. (2016). Adolescent psychosocial development: A review of longitudinal models and research. Developmental Psychology, 52(12), 1969–1993.

• Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M., & West, R. (2011). The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science, 6(42), 1–11.

• Patton, M. Q. (2018). Principles-focused evaluation: The GUIDE. Guilford Publications.

• Riessman, C. K. (2008). Narrative methods for the human sciences. SAGE Publications.

• Rose, D., & Kalathil, J. (2019). Power, privilege and knowledge: The untenable promise of co-production in mental health. Frontiers in Sociology, 4, 57.

• Tuck, E., & Guishard, M. (2013). Uncollapsing ethics: Racialized science and ethnographic inquiry. In E. Tuck & W. Yang (Eds.), Youth resistance research and theories of change (pp. 3–23). Routledge.

• Wong, N. T., Zimmerman, M. A., & Parker, E. A. (2010). A typology of youth participation and empowerment for child and adolescent health promotion. American Journal of Community Psychology, 46(1-2), 100–114.