Digital research methods have expanded possibilities for understanding adolescents’ online experiences, yet they often fail to engage racialized youth in culturally relevant, respectful, reciprocal, and relational ways (Kirkness & Barnhardt, 1991; Uhls et al., 2017; Tynes et al., 2019). These limitations are not merely technical but raise deeper questions about whose knowledge is valued and how it is produced (Kovach, 2009; Wilson, 2008). Ambulatory assessment (AA) approaches (e.g., “in-the-moment” or beeper studies) often rely on standardized Western frameworks and individualistic self-report measures, overlooking relational, community-led, and culturally grounded perspectives (La Scala et al., 2023). Addressing these gaps requires centering equity, diversity, inclusion, and decolonial (EDID) principles while recognizing that Indigenous methodologies may challenge conventional EDI frameworks, prioritizing Indigenous knowledges to reflect the cultural, relational, and historical contexts shaping adolescents’ digital experiences.
This article draws on two complementary studies with distinct methodological approaches. The first, CyberKids Live (CKLive), piloted a fully digital AA method to capture “in-the-moment” emotions and behaviors during online interactions. While feasible, CKLive reflected researcher-driven priorities and Western assumptions, limiting engagement with cultural and relational dimensions of adolescent experience. The second study, Online Warriors, grounded in Indigenous Storywork principles and Indigenous governance, co-created an AA mobile app with Black, Indigenous, and LGBTQ2S+ youth. Participatory Sharing Circles and guidance from Indigenous Knowledge Keepers positioned youth as co-creators, shaping AA app design and measures to reflect community values and Indigenous teachings. Placing these studies in dialogue highlights how adolescent digital research can move beyond extractive monitoring toward approaches that affirm relational ways of knowing and enact EDID principles.
Study Snapshots
CKLive: Ambulatory Assessment in Adolescents’ digital lives
CKLive piloted fully digital AA protocols to examine how a diverse group of adolescents experienced online interactions and coped with cyber-aggression. Participants (n = 53; ages 11–16; 56% girls, 44% boys) were recruited through schools, community centers, and social media (e.g., Instagram influencer posted a story to promote the study). Ethnic self-identification included East Asian (40%), White (24%), Southeast Asian (16%), South Asian (8%), West Asian (4%), and Other (8%). They received multiple daily prompts via an AA mobile app to report on their emotions and online interactions, producing dynamic insights beyond what retrospective surveys capture (Heron et al., 2017; Trull & Ebner-Priemer, 2020).
Although methodologically innovative, CKLive also revealed limitations. Compliance varied, with some participants finding frequent notifications intrusive. The design assumed that predetermined monitoring times outside of school hours were sufficient to capture adolescents’ digital experiences. The approach produced data but did little to meaningfully engage with the cultural and relational worlds shaping racialized youths’ online lives.
Online Warriors: Indigenous storywork as a digital method
Online Warriors was developed with an Indigenous governance partner to explore adolescent digital research grounded in strength-based Indigenous methodologies. Guided by Archibald’s (2008) Indigenous Storywork principles—respect, responsibility, reverence, reciprocity, holism, inter-relatedness, and synergy—the study centered collective storytelling. Seventeen youth (ages 13–25) took part, identifying as Black (n = 12) and Indigenous (n = 5), with some also sharing LGBTQ2S+ identities (n = 3). Recruitment strategies included community events, Indigenous youth advisory councils, and targeted social media advertisements.
They created “persona” narratives reflecting their online experiences, resilience, and wellness practices. Rather than serving as monitored subjects, participants acted as knowledge holders who co-shaped the design and implementation of fully digital AA research tools. Indigenous governance ensured that study protocols respected Indigenous epistemologies, promoted social justice, and aligned with Indigenous teachings (Smith, 2021; Wilson, 2008). This approach reframed digital research from compliance-driven monitoring to participatory, relationally accountable knowledge generation.
Comparative insights
Three key lessons from these two studies inform the development of fully digital research methods with adolescents.
First, relational support is as critical as technological design. In CKLive, compliance relied on research assistants who built rapport with participants. In Online Warriors, relationality was built into the study itself through Indigenous Storywork protocols and governance structures. Digital research tools are most effective when grounded in supportive, accountable relationships rather than deployed in isolation.
Second, Indigenous governance partners transform epistemology. CKLive followed a researcher-driven model, while Online Warriors showed how Indigenous governance reshaped procedures, research questions, interpretation, and knowledge sharing. Indigenous governance refers to the decision-making structures through which Indigenous peoples, such as the Métis Nation Government, exercise political leadership, law-making, and service administration to uphold self-determination, protect language and culture, and ensure community accountability. Unlike some EDI approaches, Indigenous frameworks prioritize sovereignty and oral protocols, which may not always align with externally defined equity or inclusion goals.
Third, Indigenous storytelling is a methodological pathway. AA generated granular quantitative data, but Indigenous Storywork produced holistic accounts of resilience, struggle, and identity. For racialized youth navigating complex digital environments, stories captured nuance, relational meaning, and cultural context that numbers alone could not (Archibald, 2008; Ungar, 2019).
Implications for digital research and practice
These findings highlight that digital research must promote authentic participation and knowledge co-creation rather than simply extract compliance. Incorporating Indigenous epistemologies and governance strengthens cultural validity and ethical integrity. Unlike EDI-informed community involvement, Indigenous governance grants formal decision-making authority to Indigenous peoples, shaping research questions, methods, and knowledge sharing according to oral protocols and self-determination. Quantitative and qualitative tools can complement one another: AA provides precision and ecological validity, while Indigenous Storywork adds depth and cultural context. Centering EDID requires careful attention to who shapes studies, how methods reflect community values, and how results are returned to benefit participants (La Scala et al., 2023; Kovach, 2021).
By integrating AA with Indigenous Storywork, researchers can capture adolescents’ real-time experiences while situating them in culturally grounded, youth-led narratives. For example, AA prompts might appear during digital storytelling, asking participants to reflect on emotions or decisions as they create a “persona” narrative of online interactions. This approach interprets behaviors and feelings within their relational, linguistic, and cultural contexts, supporting ethically responsive, culturally grounded, and developmentally meaningful research, challenging Western individualistic frameworks, and advancing relational, transformative approaches.
Closing reflections
Juxtaposing CKLive and Online Warriors illustrates that methods are never neutral; they embed assumptions about whose knowledge counts and how it is shared. Indigenous Storywork reframes these assumptions, positioning adolescents as collaborators and knowledge holders. Blending digital AA with strength-based participatory approaches offers a promising model for EDID-focused adolescent research. Future work should prioritize questions emerging from communities and racialized youth themselves, carried through stories and embedded within relationships of accountability. In doing so, adolescent digital research can move beyond measurement to co-create knowledge that shapes healthier, more inclusive, and decolonial digital futures.
References
Archibald, J. (2008). Indigenous storywork: Educating the heart, mind, body, and spirit (1st ed.). UBC Press. https://doi.org/10.59962/9780774855440opens in new window
Heron, K. E., Everhart, R. S., McHale, S. M., & Smyth, J. M. (2017). Using mobile-technology-based ecological momentary assessment (EMA) methods with youth: A systematic review and recommendations. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 42(10), 1087-1107. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsx078opens in new window
Kirkness, V. J., & Barnhardt, R. (1991). First nations and higher education: The four R's--respect, relevance, reciprocity, responsibility. Journal of American Indian Education, 30(3), 1.
Kovach, M. (2021). Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and contexts (Second ed.). University of Toronto Press.
La Scala, S., Mullins, J. L., Firat, R. B., Michalska, K. J., & Emotional Learning Research Community Advisory Board. (2023). Equity, diversity, and inclusion in developmental neuroscience: Practical lessons from community-based participatory research. Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience, 16, 1007249. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnint.2022.1007249opens in new window
Trull, T. J., & Ebner-Priemer, U. W. (2020). Ambulatory assessment in psychopathology research: A review of recommended reporting guidelines and current practices. Journal of Abnormal Psychology (1965), 129(1), 56-63. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000473opens in new window
Uhls, Y. T., Ellison, N. B., & Subrahmanyam, K. (2017). Benefits and costs of social media in adolescence. Pediatrics (Evanston), 140(Supplement_2), S67-S70. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-1758Eopens in new window
Ungar, M. (2019). Designing resilience research: Using multiple methods to investigate risk exposure, promotive and protective processes, and contextually relevant outcomes for children and youth. Child Abuse & Neglect, 96, 104098. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.104098opens in new window
Contact
Johanna Sam, PhD
Jan Hare, PhD
Jennifer D. Shapka, PhD
University of British Columbia, Canada
Email