Banter for Breakfast

 

Just Call Me Critical Carrie

 After spending some time exploring positivist, constructivist, and critical research ideologies, I can see how each one offers a very different lens for looking at the same question. Out of the three, I feel most aligned with the critical ideology because it focuses on power, justice, and the social conditions that shape people’s lives. In my work and interests, I keep coming back to how larger systems affect children and youth, especially those living through crisis. The critical perspective doesn’t just study what is, it also asks what things could be made different and how research can play a role in creating more just possibilities.

The question I’ve been pondering is: what role does hope play in how children navigate and recover from crisis, and how can youth programs intentionally nurture it? 

From a positivist lens, I’d probably look at hope as a variable to be measured. I would use surveys or other means to “score” levels of hope and then track how those scores relate to things like emotional recovery, school performance, or interpersonal skills and connections. The goal would be to find patterns across groups of children.

From a constructivist perspective, I’d focus on youth's personal definition of hope. I’d want to hear from children themselves through interviews and stories, about how they understand hope, what it feels like, and how it reveals itself to them in moments of crisis. The answers will probably be unique to each child, shaped by their experiences and view of the world.

From a critical perspective (the one I lean toward), I’d consider how social forces influence a child’s ability to hope. Barriers like poverty, racism, and lack of safety can crush hope, while supportive programs and communities can nurture it or help it begin to grow. I'd be looking at how youth programs can be intentional about creating environments that protect, sustain, and even spark hope for youth during times of crisis.