How we Became the Schmams: Conceptualizations of Fairness in the Decision‐Making Process for Latina/O Children

Abstract

The current study examines 16 Latina/o fifth grade children's desires for a decision-making structure within a youth participatory action research (yPAR) program. When given the choices of consensus, majority rule, authoritarian rule, delegation, and random choice models, children chose random choice. Procedural, distributive and emotional justice were heavily weighted in their reasoning around fairness and decision making. Many thought random choice offered the best alternative because it flattened power hierarchies so that each child would, at some point, have the power to make a decision. Additionally, children argued that the neutrality of random choice allowed them to sidestep interpersonal tensions. Implications include how social identities inform definitions of fairness and how yPAR programs should work with youth around how they will make decisions.