How Does Social Media Impact Canadian Youth's Mental Health

The question I would like to ask about the lives and experiences of youth is “How does social media impact Canadian youth’s mental health?”. I believe this is a good question for several reasons. First of all, the question specifies the population I aim to work with. Second, the question is relatively open, which is beneficial since I would ideally be conducting qualitative research through semi-structured interviews. Thus, the broadness of the question will allow me to collect a wider arrange of data than with a more specific question. I would also like to use Participatory Action Research (PAR) as a foundation due to my desire to understand social structures and use my data (with the help of participants) to empower others with less power.

For example, I would be using an interpretive epistemology, as I am trying to understand youth’s understanding of their experiences in the world. Using this framework is much easier when done through qualitative interviewing and observation, as opposed to quantitative measures. Moreover, semi-structured interviews allows for the participant to take the lead on the answers shared, and they can even suggest questions and answers that we did not think of. This is important for PAR, as you want the participants to be empowered within the research and be an active member of the project.

Chapter Three Activity Two The two theories I will be comparing is Institutional Ethnography (IE) and Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) as described in Tilleczek’s (2011) text. IE has a focus on looking at personal experiences within the social context they occur in. It is often conducted via interviews, analysis of documents, and observations. The data can be applied to demonstrate how dominations are problematic for young people. Contrastingly, CDA focuses on culture and social locations. Its method of research is done by analyzing texts and discourses. It can be used to se how our culture shapes a youth’s sense of self and

The book starts off the the author’s assumption that the declared war on crime is actually a war on kids. Schissel then goes on to state this belief that this war, and the prosecution of kids that come from it, is carefully calculated and planned by those with power. This is done because it creates fear, and the author is operating under the assumption that fear can be politicized to fit the needs of those with power who set the standards of morality. Moreover, Schissel challenges the presumption that youth are inherently evil and that punishment is necessary to create law-abiding kids. He counters this by stating that those who are often associated with immorality and ‘badness’ are often those facing social inequalities, such as women, people of colour, and lower-income