Youth-Led Innovation: Enhancing the Skills and Capacity of the Next Generation of Innovators

Abstract

The focus of our research is youth-led innovation, whereby young people instigate potential
solutions to a problem, often one that they have identified or defined themselves, and
take responsibility for developing and implementing a solution. Our report analyses the
research to date on youth-led innovation and identifies evidence of impact. It highlights
that opportunities to participate in innovation increase young people’s likelihood to
innovate in the future and what helps or hinders youth-led innovation. We offer proposals
for encouraging more young people to take part in youth-led innovation, which were
developed with focus groups of young innovators and organisations that work with them.
Alongside this research, the National Youth Agency and Changemakers have produced a
NESTA guide for practitioners on youth-led innovation1 and illustrative case studies.

Full text

Youth-led innovation
Enhancing the skills and capacity
of the next generation of innovators
Judy Sebba, Vivienne Griffiths, Barry Luckock,
Frances Hunt, Carol Robinson – University of Sussex
and Steve Flowers – University of Brighton
With Julie Farlie, Rajendra Mulmi and Nicola Drew

3
NESTA is the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts.
Our aim is to transform the UK’s capacity for innovation. We invest
in early-stage companies, inform innovation policy and encourage a
culture that helps innovation to flourish.

3
Youth-led innovation Enhancing the skills and capacity of the next generation of innovators
Executive Summary
In our challenging economic climate, young people will need to develop the skills and
understanding to pursue and develop innovative solutions in both their own lives and for
the organisations they join and create as the UK seeks new opportunities to meet the
future. There has been little systematic analysis however of how and where young people
innovate, or of how that innovation can be best supported and developed.
The focus of our research is youth-led innovation, whereby young people instigate potential
solutions to a problem, often one that they have identified or defined themselves, and
take responsibility for developing and implementing a solution. Our report analyses the
research to date on youth-led innovation and identifies evidence of impact. It highlights
that opportunities to participate in innovation increase young people’s likelihood to
innovate in the future and what helps or hinders youth-led innovation. We offer proposals
for encouraging more young people to take part in youth-led innovation, which were
developed with focus groups of young innovators and organisations that work with them.
Alongside this research, the National Youth Agency and Changemakers have produced a
NESTA guide for practitioners on youth-led innovation1 and illustrative case studies.
We identified three domains in which youth-led innovation occurs
In the commercial/service domain, examples of youth-led innovation include the many
fashions, music, software and design of services started by young people. The civic/political
domain relates to citizenship and the right to participate on an equal basis in order to achieve
this citizenship. The innovation may be in the process, its impact on public services or even
a specific outcome such as a change in law. The cultural, subcultural or countercultural
domain is where the more anarchic characteristics of young people are often played out, for
example through music and fashion subcultures.
In each domain, examples of youth-led innovation range from those that are entirely youth-
led, to those initiated by adults but taken over or influenced by young people. In any of these,
the capacity for further innovation may develop. The domains are not mutually exclusive:
what began through punk as a countercultural force was made commercially popular by
record producers like Malcolm McLaren and designers such as Vivienne Westwood. More
recently, games manufacturers have adopted as commercial features some innovations in
computer games developed illegally by young people.
Young people’s innovation can have major economic, cultural and social impact
In 2007, the UK’s 7-19 year olds spent £13.9 billion; with clothes, computer games and
‘going out’ being major areas of spend.2 In these sectors, in their search for the new, young
people stimulate the demand for innovation and diffuse new cultural trends. Young people
now play a formative role in computer gaming, where most computer games products
offer producer-established online communities that innovate around the products. In the
music and film industries, radical and disruptive innovations by young people as ‘outlaw
users’, such as illegal filesharing, have forced major changes in the industries’ products
1. The National Youth Agency and
Changemakers (2008) ‘NESTA: Youth-led
Innovation – A guide for Practitioners.’
London: NESTA.
2. Data from Mintel International cited in
www.oft.gov.uk/news/press/2007/87-07
[Accessed on 9 February 2009].

4
Youth-led innovation Enhancing the skills and capacity of the next generation of innovators
5
3. The National Youth Agency and
Changemakers (2008) op.cit. p.1.
4. Ibid.
5. UNICEF (2007) ‘Child Poverty in
Perspective: An Overview of Child Well-
Being in Rich Countries.’ Florence: UNICEF.
and business models. Young people have developed new technological processes, including
languages for text messaging, online etiquette and new online social networks.
Young people have gained new rights through innovative civic activism, including a greater
say in the running of many schools. Public bodies are also increasingly recognising the role
of young people as users and service designers. Some local authority Children’s Services
have led the way in involving young people in public service design. In Trafford, for example,
Evaluating Services Provided (ESP) has increased young people’s awareness of services by
awarding an ESP ‘Youth Approved’ standard to providers of services that successfully take
part in a youth-led process of improvement.3
Young people’s innovation skills can be developed from an early age
Young people can best develop the skills for innovation by receiving positive feedback
and recognition for early successes and having opportunities to experience successful
innovation for themselves. These experiences increase young people’s confidence in their
ability to identify problems and find solutions; life skills that are increasingly demanded by
employers. Young people’s innovation is usually associated with teenagers, but studies of
younger children demonstrate the benefits of teaching design, problem solving or critical
skills for developing the capability to innovate.
But young people who want to innovate face many barriers
The practical constraints of legal age restrictions on banking, setting up companies and
applying for patents can act as barriers. Young people also face challenges in getting financial
backing and support from being perceived as too inexperienced to be taken seriously. Galen
Brown of Stromness in Orkney was 15 when he invented a device to save money and power
when appliances are on stand-by. His biggest problems were not technical, but not knowing
investors or licensees and his age, which limited access to business support.4
Social inequalities and living in rural communities can also create barriers, restricting young
people from accessing the information and social networks that can help them develop their
ideas. To use online networks and to gain access to the knowledge, resources and networks
they need for innovation, young people need digital access. The ‘disenfranchisement’ of
those whose families cannot afford broadband and computers can be a profound barrier for
young people who have ideas.
Too much adult control can inhibit innovation
There are also more subtle barriers. Adults need to facilitate rather than teach innovation.
Young people need the freedom to develop new ideas and concepts themselves. For adults
to ‘let go’ or ‘hand over’ resources and decision-making requires sensitive handling and
a degree of courage: young people themselves sometimes need to be challenged if their
perceptions of authority inhibit them from taking the lead. Young innovators suggest that
some teachers are too helpful; stifling students’ ability to think for themselves. And, as adult
innovators experience, new ideas can be ridiculed or ignored.
Negative cultural attitudes towards young people inhibit innovation
To be innovators, young people need to feel confident of the worth of their ideas and
that their contribution is valued and can make a difference. Both the literature and our
focus groups identified that negative attitudes towards young people are a major barrier to
innovation. Recent research by UNICEF5 showed that the United Kingdom ranked bottom
of the 21 industrialised countries in children’s self-perceptions of well-being. Language can
make a difference: negative media coverage that generalises about ‘youth’ and labels young
people ‘kids’ exacerbates the problem.

4
5
Youth-led innovation Enhancing the skills and capacity of the next generation of innovators
6. The National Youth Agency and
Changemakers (2008) op.cit. p.1.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
There are opportunities in the curriculum to give greater support to young people’s
innovation
Some young people innovate without adult support through their curiosity and wish to
engage with the world around them; but many more could be supported to do so through
school leadership activities; through challenges to find innovative solutions to social,
environmental, design or technical and scientific problems; within the primary curriculum
and within the secondary curriculum, where GCSE, Diploma and other project work allows
young people freedom to develop their ideas. For example, Emily Cummins’ ‘innovation
career’ was spurred by a project for a GCSE Resistant Materials class. She went on to do
Product Design ‘A’ level, winning an award for a water transporter and later developing a
fridge that does not use electricity.6
Networks have an important role to play in young people’s innovation
Flexibility in the curriculum can foster young people’s innovation; but encouragement in
the wider culture and from youth organisations is equally important and can be developed
through ‘enabling spaces’, social networks, role models, mentoring and support. There is a
role for both online and more traditional networks, where young people can get the right
advice and support both from their peers and where appropriate, from adults. Networks are
also a good way of building links between inventors and potential sponsors. Sponsorship is
crucial if an idea is to be brought to life – or moved from invention to innovation. Matthew
Brown was 12 years old when he started the Movement Against Sectarianism In Football
(MASIF) after posting a message on a blog about wanting to stop supporter violence. This
was seen by Michael Boyd, Head of Community at the Irish Football Association, who put
Matthew in touch with the UnLtd grant scheme that enabled him to set up the project.7
Young people are more innovative where they are able to gather and bounce ideas off
one another and collaborate with others to develop new concepts. Some young people
have developed their own networks. Hear My Voice, for example, offers residential weekend
courses and a website where young Muslim women can blog, write articles and join in the
discussion forum.8 Some innovative firms now host websites where young users can interact
and support each other, and many other communities of users emerge spontaneously.
We identified six major ways in which policymakers, schools and youth organisations
can help
Creating an ‘innovation culture’ in the UK that supports and celebrates the role of young
people in innovation requires a long-term cultural shift. Our focus groups counselled us
strongly against producing a single recipe for innovation; but much can be done in the
shorter term to enable young people to contribute more to innovation and to develop the
skills they need to be the successful innovative employees, employers and citizens of the
future.
1. Encourage the use of national and local media to promote positive images of young
people and youth-led innovation. This could be addressed in three ways: encouraging
programme makers to create opportunities for youth-led production of radio and
television programmes; extending the number of schools and youth groups who
develop their own radio and television stations as a vehicle for youth innovation;
and youth organisations and public bodies working together to target the media to
celebrate the ways in which young people make a positive contribution.
2. Develop Innovation Toolkits aimed at young people to provide the process and
structure to support them to develop innovations. For example, Toolkits could support
innovation in the school curriculum, in the use of space in residential homes and in
health services. To avoid duplication and identify gaps, an audit is needed of currently
available Toolkits. New Toolkits should be properly targeted with young innovators
leading and managing their development.

6
Youth-led innovation Enhancing the skills and capacity of the next generation of innovators
7
9. The Integrated Qualifications Framework
(IQF) will be a set of approved
qualifications that aims to allow
progression, continuing professional
development and mobility that supports
shared values and learning approaches
across the whole of the children and young
people’s workforce. Available at: http://
www.iqf.org.uk/ [Accessed on 13 February
2009].
3. Provide access to networks to support young innovators. Target the development
or extension of existing social or business networks to offer support, mentoring and
advice for young people who want to develop innovative products, services and
initiatives. These need to be inclusive to address the innovation gap. This might be
done through partnering with organisations that run business or professional networks.
4. Provide more staff development for adults who work with children and young people
on how to support youth innovation through influencing the development of the
Integrated Qualifications Framework;9 and through providing Toolkits for educators,
youth workers and other adults who work with young people. Both initial professional
training and continuing staff development need to address these issues.
5. Provide ‘spaces’ and ‘places’ to support young people’s innovation. ‘Spaces’ can be
opportunities or challenges, both within the school curriculum and outside formal
education, that enable young people to exercise their problem-solving, open-
thinking and teamwork skills on issues that they identify as important. Spaces can
also be virtual ones that enable young people to collaborate, test out their ideas
and get support. ‘Places’ can encompass existing initiatives such as school councils
and the Youth Parliament, which could be extended beyond their consultation and
participation role to take on a stronger youth-led focus that enables young people to
assume leadership roles in management and governance. These should aim to embed
innovation opportunities inclusively rather than create separate structures that only
some young people can access.
6. Recognise, celebrate and reward organisational support for youth-led innovation
through existing ‘badging’ schemes such as specialist schools, extended schools
and eco-schools. Within these and other schemes, greater priority could be given to
supporting youth-led innovation. Furthermore, potential support and ‘advocacy’ for
young people to innovate could be made more identifiable and coherent by creating
opportunities to bring together the disparate organisations that campaign on behalf
of young people. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child provides
the context in which young people can expect to exercise their rights to public services
and citizenship.
More evidence is needed about ‘what works’
Our research identified a number of ideas for programme development and future research.
However, in order to build on the evidence base and maximise coherence, the first priority
would be to pilot and evaluate work relating to one or more of the six proposals above.

6 7
Youth-led innovation Enhancing the skills and capacity of the next generation of innovators
We are very grateful to the following who contributed to the focus group discussions in
Sussex, London and Sheffield.
Jamal Maxey University of Sussex
Dawa Dem University of Sussex
Sanjay Jothe University of Sussex
Raj Anand Kwiqq.com
Alev Zahir Edge Learner Forum
Nick Hagan Edge Learner Forum
Stephen Frost Envision
Helen Thomas Envision
Sabirul Islam The World at Your Feet
Luke Lancaster Young Pioneers
Peter Lancaster Young Pioneers
Debi Roker Trust for Study of Adolescents
Ciara Davey CRAE
Suzanne Philips The Kent Foundation
Rachel Urquhart Envision
Abi Bulley Changemakers
Nick Micinski Commission for Youth Social Enterprise
Peter Ptashko UnLtd
Abby Kegg UnLtd
Ruth Amos Steady Stairs
Mike Garnock-Jones BiG Make it Your Business (LEGI) Sheffield
Grace Haughian University of Sheffield
Laura Synnuck Children and Young People’s Empowerment Project
Leroy Williamson Sheffield Youth Council
Thanks are also due to Theresa Crowley, Gerard Darby and Maria Estevez for their continued
interest and support and Brian Parkinson for IT and technical support.
Acknowledgements

8
Youth-led innovation Enhancing the skills and capacity of the next generation of innovators
9
About the research 10
What the research was designed to achieve 10
How the research was done 10
1. Young people’s role in innovation is of increasing interest to policymakers 11
2. What is youth-led innovation? 13
3. We identified youth-led innovation in different sectors and contexts 16
There are three distinct domains in which youth-led innovation occurs 16
Domain 1: The commercial and public service sectors 16
Domain 2: Civic engagement and political activism 19
Domain 3: Cultural, subcultural or countercultural innovation 22
4. We identified some powerful facilitators of youth-led innovation 25
Social capital gained through social networking is an important facilitator 25
Role models provide major sources of support 26
Support and trust of others is crucial 26
Flexible space, time and opportunities enable youth-led innovation to 27
develop
5. There are some strong barriers to youth-led innovation 28
Negative attitudes towards young people can limit their confidence 28
Power relationships with adults can inhibit young people from taking the 28
lead
Familiarity can impede innovation 28
Structures aimed at increasing innovation may act as barriers 29
There can be legal and financial constraints and lack of support 29
Technology is insufficiently accessible to all 30
6. Youth-led innovation can have benefits – but better identification of 31
these is needed
More robust evidence of impact is needed 31
Examples were found of a range of benefits 31
Early innovation experiences can develop the capacity of young people 32
for innovation
Policymakers, educators and youth organisations can support and 33
encourage young people’s innovation, but much will remain outside
institutions and adult influence
Contents

8
9
Youth-led innovation Enhancing the skills and capacity of the next generation of innovators
7. The research identified directions for future programmes 34
Develop Toolkits aimed at young people 34
Target the development or extension for young people of existing social 35
and business networks
Develop youth-led innovation through the media 35
Develop a culture that supports youth-led innovation 35
Future programmes need to build an evidence base of ‘what works’ 37
Towards a framework of youth-led innovation 37
Appendix: About our review of the literature 39
Databases searched for the literature review 40
Search terms 41

10
Youth-led innovation Enhancing the skills and capacity of the next generation of innovators
11
10. The National Youth Agency and
Changemakers (2008) op.cit.
About the research
What the research was designed to achieve
The research looked at what has been written about youth-led innovation and identified
evidence of impact. It highlighted whether innovation increases the likelihood of further
innovation and what helps or hinders youth-led innovation. A framework was drawn up to
show how youth-led innovation might work in order to help others support and encourage
it to happen. Proposals for taking it forward were developed. Alongside this research, the
National Youth Agency and Changemakers have produced a NESTA guide for practitioners
on youth-led innovation10 and illustrative case studies.
How the research was done
Electronic databases, websites and references listed in available publications were searched
for relevant books and papers (see the Appendix for more details and for the databases
and search terms used). Over 500 references were then screened using the criteria in
the Appendix, which identified 65 publications for the review. Further literature that has
informed the report, some of which provided empirical evidence, is also referenced.
Four focus group discussions were held, one in Sussex, two in London and one in Sheffield
with young innovators and representatives from organisations and companies supporting
youth-led innovation. At each, the research team presented the main findings from the
literature review together with the emerging framework and recommendations. Detailed
notes were made at each focus group and points raised are incorporated into this report.
Two experienced youth consultants working with the project team facilitated the focus
groups and provided ongoing ‘reality checks’ for the researchers during their discussions of
the findings.

10 11
Youth-led innovation Enhancing the skills and capacity of the next generation of innovators
11. DIUS (2008) ‘Innovation Nation.’ Cmd
7345. London: The Stationery Office.
12. Ibid. p.5.
13. DCSF (2008a) ‘The Children’s Plan.’
London: DCSF.
14. DCSF (2008b) ‘Children’s and Young
People’s Workforce Strategy.’ London:
DCSF.
15. DTI (2003) ‘Innovation Report. Competing
in the Global Economy: the Innovation
Challenge.’ London: DTI.
16. Medway Council Cabinet (2006) ‘Report
presented on the Children and Young
People’s Policy Framework.’ Medway:
Medway Council. Available at: www2.
medway.gov.uk/FTP/Cabinet_Decisions/
is985/reports/report_985_1411.doc
[Accessed on 5 January 2009].
17. DfES (2005) ‘Youth Matters.’ London:
DfES.
18. Ibid.
19. UNICEF (2007) op.cit. p.6.
20. Jochum, V., Pratten, B. and Wilding,
K. (2005) ‘Civil renewal and active
citizenship: a guide to the debate.’
London: NCVO.
Innovation policy in the UK is changing in response to concerns about the productivity
and competitiveness of the economy and the quality and effectiveness of public services.11
Seen traditionally as a matter of research, development and commercialisation by inspired
managers in business, innovation is now understood to be a process that occurs across
the wider economy and society. Whilst traditional innovation continues to attract public
investment, there is now increasing interest in identifying and supporting ‘new sources
of innovation’.12 Such new innovation is as likely to originate from users of products and
services as from inventors and managers in the commercial or public sector. New technology
and increasingly wide access to it are also helping to create the conditions for more open
approaches to innovation, as well as for the systems that generate and sustain change.
The Government’s Innovation Nation White Paper strap-line is ‘unlocking talent’.
Policymakers are keen to put this into practice, by developing drivers of innovation at all
levels. This commitment can be seen as much in the current policies and plans for children’s
services13 and workforce development14 as in those for the manufacturing industry.15 In
both cases, interest and investment focus on how users or consumers can help to design
and deliver services and products – and the innovative processes used to do so. In Medway,
the Council consulted over 700 children and young people from schools, young offenders,
members of youth clubs, and children from a faith group in order to inform the production
of the Children and Young People’s Plan.16
This commitment was also reflected in the Youth Matters Green Paper17 that emphasised
the need to engage more young people in positive activities and empower them to shape
their services. The Green Paper suggested that young people should have more influence
over what is provided in their area, be more involved in planning and delivering services and
have more opportunities to express their views. Youth Matters also recognised the need
to provide better support to young people at times of transition, whether from primary to
secondary school, or from secondary school to further education, training or work. These
decisions were acknowledged18 to have major effects on their future wellbeing and on their
capability to contribute to society.
Concerns about children’s well-being were heightened by the 2007 UNICEF report Child
Poverty in Perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries.19 It drew on 40
indicators of children’s lives and rights, and concluded that the United Kingdom ranked
bottom of the 21 industrialised countries in the study. Children’s self-perceptions of well-
being were particularly poor in the UK. The report again noted their vulnerabilities at times
of transition.
Contemporary policy on developing private and public sector innovation in the commercial
and service sectors must be seen as one aspect of government commitment to as to the rights
of ‘active citizenship’ that has led to wider civil or civic renewal.20 In recent years, citizenship
in the UK has become defined as much by reference to the duties and responsibilities of
1. Young people’s role in
innovation is of increasing
interest to policymakers

12
Youth-led innovation Enhancing the skills and capacity of the next generation of innovators
13
21. Willow, C., Marchant, R., Kirby, P. and
Neale, B. (2004) ‘Young children’s
citizenship: Ideas into practice.’ York:
Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
22. Kirby, P., Lanyon, C., Cronin, K. and
Sinclair, R. (2003) ‘Building a Culture
of Participation. Involving children and
young people in policy, service planning,
delivery and evaluation.’ Nottingham:
DfES Publications.
23. DfES (2003) ‘Every child matters.’ Cmd
5860. London: The Stationery Office.
24. Benton,T., Cleaver, E., Featherstone, G.,
Kerr, D., Lopes, J. and Whitby, K. (2008)
‘Citizenship Education Longitudinal
Study (CELS): Sixth Annual Report.
Young People’s Civic Participation In and
Beyond School: Attitudes, Intentions and
Influences.’ London: DCSF.
25. Bragg, S. (2007) ‘Consulting young
people: a review of the literature.’
London: Creative Partnerships, Arts
Council England.
26. Kirby, P. and Bryson, S. (2002) ‘Measuring
the Magic? Evaluating and Researching
Young People’s Participation in Public
Decision Making.’ London: Carnegie
Young People Initiative.
27. Whitty, G. and Wisby, E. (2007) ‘Real
Decision Making? School Councils in
Action.’ London: DCSF.
28. DCSF (2008c) ‘The Independent Review
of the Primary Curriculum: Interim
Report.’ (Sir Jim Rose Review). London:
DCSF.
29. Demos (2007) ‘Ready for the future:
young people’s views on work and
careers.’ London: NESTA/Demos.
30. Whitty, G. and Wisby, E. (2007) op.cit.
p.13.
31. UNICEF (2007) op.cit. p.6.
32. DCSF (2008d) ‘Working together:
Listening to the voices of children and
young people.’ London: DCSF.
individuals. Chief amongst them is the responsibility to participate as partners, not only in
the provision and use of public services, where this idea has become a central motif, but also
in the democratic process more widely.
Moreover, the idea of an active and participative citizenship has now been extended to
children and young people.21 Their responsibilities as young citizens have been validated in
policies that require and enable their participation in the design and delivery of services22,
23 including actively contributing to the life of their school.24 However, as Bragg25 and Kirby
and Bryson26 note, the assumption that involving young people in the planning of services
will improve their quality has rarely been investigated. Their rights to participate are also
being extended in legislation, both in education and for children in care. The campaign to
have their views enforced as well as heard is growing in strength. So, it is as important that
we develop the talents of young people to innovate just as much as those of adults. After
all, they are not only increasingly influential consumers of goods and users of services, but
also becoming active citizens.
Citizenship was introduced into the school curriculum in 2000 and was made statutory for
11-16 year olds from September 2002. The subject is aimed at encouraging pupils to develop
sound principles of freedom, democracy, equality, justice and peace. The knowledge and
understanding covered by the citizenship curriculum includes democracy, and individual’s
rights, responsibilities and position within society. In this context, the development of school
councils has been encouraged, as a means of representing pupils’ views within schools and
Whitty and Wisby report27 that 95 per cent of schools now have such structures.
Recent developments in the school curriculum, such as new 14-19 diplomas, the updating
of GCSEs and A-Levels and an expansion of Apprenticeships, suggest increasing flexibility
in the curriculum and qualifications offered. Greater opportunities for work experience and
more emphasis on critical thinking skills and teamwork should allow for greater innovation.
The recently published interim report of the Rose review of the primary curriculum,28
recommends greater flexibility in the curriculum to give more emphasis to ‘skills for life’
including communication, teamworking and problem-solving; skills that Demos said are
identified repeatedly as priorities by employers.29
Whitty and Wisby’s30 school councils study made recommendations pertinent to the UNICEF
findings,31 noting that pupils need training to participate meaningfully in their schooling.
These findings informed the DCSF guidance, Working together: Listening to the voices of
children and young people.32

12 13
Youth-led innovation Enhancing the skills and capacity of the next generation of innovators
33. Bessant, J. and Tidd, J. (2007) ‘Innovation
and Entrepreneurship.’ London: Wiley.
34. See www.nesta.org.uk/invention
35. See www.nesta.org.uk/entrepreneurship
36. Heath, J. and Potter, A. (2004) ‘The Rebel
Sell: How the Counterculture became
Consumer Culture.’ Mankato: Capstone.
37. Rogers, E. (2003) ‘Diffusion of
Innovations.’ 5th ed. New York: Free
Press.
38. Freeman, C. (1982) ‘The economics of
industrial innovation.’ 2nd ed. London:
Frances Pinter.
In scoping and shaping definitions of ‘youth-led’ innovation, we need to clarify the different
claims made by young people and others on their behalf about the nature and purpose of
their innovative practices. In particular, contrasting perspectives about ‘youth’ challenge
the commercial understanding that innovation is a managed process, and must always be
so.33 ‘Youth’ as an idea, as well as a life stage, is increasingly understood to be something in
which to invest. This is exemplified in the inclusion of youth in the innovation discourse and
the search for the right environment for them to participate and show enterprise.
The definition of ‘innovation’ given in the commissioning brief was:
The development and dissemination of a new product, service or process that produces
economic, social or cultural change.
This can be distinguished from ‘invention’ defined as:
The first occurrence of an idea for a new product or process, while innovation is the first
attempt to carry it out into practice. There is often a considerable time lag between the
two.34
‘Entrepreneurship’ is about the skills and resources needed to progress invention into
innovation and, citing Schumpeter, can be defined as:
The ability to turn an invention into an innovation through the combination of several
different types of knowledge, capabilities, skills and resources.35
We have taken ‘innovative’ to apply either to the initial idea or to any part of the
implementation process – or to both. It is important to recognise that young people
may instigate new ideas, but they also play an important role in some sectors as early
adopters who stimulate the demand for innovative products and services. The research on
‘diffusion’36,37 argues that there is only a small number of ‘real innovators’ who identify new
ideas and behaviours; but an important role is also played by ‘early adopters’, a slightly
larger group who decide whether to follow the innovators’ lead. If they do, the trend grows
and is taken up much more widely.
Youth-led innovation can encompass both incremental and radical innovation.38 Many
radical innovations emerge from outsiders, whereas incremental innovations often emerge
from those closely involved in the day-to-day use of a particular good or service. Most
innovation tends to be incremental, with the less frequent radical innovations potentially
shaking things up. If adopted, such radical innovations can become disruptive to the
traditional market, just as filesharing forced changes in the music and film industries.
2. What is youth-led
innovation?

14
Youth-led innovation Enhancing the skills and capacity of the next generation of innovators
15
39. Bessant, J. and Tidd, J. (2007) op.cit.
p.14.
40. Barker, K. (2004) Diffusion of
Innovations: A World Tour. ‘Journal of
Health Communication.’ 9 (6 supp 1),
pp.131-137.
41. Fullan, M. (2007) ‘The New Meaning of
Educational Change.’ New York: Teachers
College Press.
42. Hart, R. (1997) ‘Children’s participation.’
New York/London: UNICEF/Earthscan
Publications.
43. Stoneman, P. (2007) ‘An Introduction
to the definition and measurement of
soft innovation.’ NESTA Working Paper.
Available at: http://www.nesta.org.uk/
assets/Uploads/pdf/Working-paper/
soft_innovation_working_paper_NESTA.
pdf [Accessed on 13 February 2009].
44. Ibid. p.11.
45. Ibid.
46. Flowers, S. (2008a) ‘The New Inventors:
How users are changing the rules of
innovation.’ London: NESTA.
47. DIUS (2008) op.cit. p.12.
48. Castells, M. (1996) ‘The Information
Age: Economy, Society and Culture.’
Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
49. von Hippel, E. (2005) ‘Democratizing
Innovation.’ Cambridge, MA: The MIT
Press.
50. Flowers, S. (2008b) Harnessing the
Hackers: The emergence and exploitation
of Outlaw Innovation. ‘Research Policy.’
37, pp.177–193.
51. Lessig, L. (2004) ‘Free Culture: How big
media uses technology and the law to
lock down culture and control creativity.’
London: Penguin.
The literature on innovation in general suggests that ideas, which initially may be regarded
as unusual or marginal by people other than those proposing them, are often subsequently
brought into the mainstream.39 Many technological developments and types of music, for
example, may be poorly received when initially proposed, but later become widespread and
embedded in the culture. A successful commercial or service innovation requires the initial
idea to have become widely available, though originally, it need not be inherently or overtly
commercial.
Young people can also contribute to diffusion of innovation in the sense proposed by Barker
to argue that when innovation is embedded in the culture of an organisation, it may happen
continuously and become the norm.40 This is similar to the concept of ‘continually improving
schools’ described by Michael Fullan: such schools are characterised by professional learning
within a culture of continuous reflection, deliberation and change.41
While the work on ‘ladders of participation’42 developed to describe different levels
of young people’s involvement in decision-making in schools and other bodies should
be acknowledged, it has not been included in this review. Our definition of innovation
requires the development of a product, service or process beyond merely being involved.
Furthermore, the literature supports the contention that the development of participation
is not a linear process as implied by ‘ladder’ models.
Our definition includes soft innovation as discussed by Stoneman – aesthetic rather
than functional changes in products.43 A soft innovation might look, feel, smell or taste
differently and might be a new perfume, car design, musical recording, or changes in
fashion. The launching of new products represents soft innovation “if those products are
aesthetic or offer different aesthetic characteristics from products already on the market”.44
Soft innovation differs from some of the more functional approaches and definitions of
innovation and previously was often excluded from studies of innovation.45
The definition of youth-led innovation describes the role that a young person or group of
young people take in this process:
... instigating potential solutions to a problem, often one that they themselves have
been at least partly responsible for identifying or defining. The young people take
responsibility for coming up with the solution and also implementing it.
This view of the young person proposing and implementing the solution is similar to that
proposed in user-centric models of innovation.46 As such, it differs markedly from the
traditional view of the ‘supplier’ as the source of innovation and the user as the potential
market for output. Innovation Nation argued that more effective products, services and
delivery require new ideas from the public and private sectors, users and professionals.47 It
acknowledged that innovation is driven by demand as well as supply and that this is reflected
in the need to involve users in innovating collaboratively in business and public services.
The distinction between user and producer becomes increasingly blurred in democratised
innovation:
… some users are able to develop and extend technologies and the distinction between
user and producer, or ‘users’ and ‘doers’ as Castells would have it,48 essentially disappears.
The emergence of this behaviour has led to what has been termed a democratising of
innovation.49,50
Youth-led innovation may also reconnect to an earlier folk or craft-based approach to
culture and society that stands in contrast to the more contemporary view of users whose
involvement in popular culture is simply as consumers.51

14 15
Youth-led innovation Enhancing the skills and capacity of the next generation of innovators
52. Prout, A. (2005) ‘The Future of
Childhood. Towards the interdisciplinary
study of children.’ London:
RoutledgeFalmer.
53. Matthews, H. (2001) Citizenship, Youth
Councils and Young People’s Participation.
‘Journal of Youth Studies.’ 4 (3), pp.299-
318.
54. In this report we refer to capability as the
characteristics of individuals or groups
that enable them to innovate. This
includes their motivation, interests, skills
and the developmental changes that may
occur to these over time. By contrast,
capacity is used to describe that which
enables the capability to be exercised. So,
capacity to innovate might be increased
by any of the facilitators identified in this
report, such as support of various kinds,
attitudes of others, social networking
and access to resources. Capability can be
developed and capacity increased in each
of the areas or ‘domains’ of innovation
that we identify.
55. Moss, P. and Petrie, P. (2002) ‘From
Children’s Services to Children’s Spaces:
Public Policy, Children and Childhood.’
London: RoutledgeFalmer.
56. Ibid. p.113-114.
The focus of this study has mainly been on young people of school age, but it is important
to recognise that ‘youth’ is a contested social category and not simply a statement of age
range. The distinctive nature of ‘youth’ emerges from some of the evidence reviewed here.
How this distinction is defined continues to be debated.52 Matthews, for example, suggests
that the notion of ‘youth’ is unhelpful – a “monolithic social category … obscuring
different levels of interest, knowledge and involvement”.53 In this report, we try to draw
out where the distinctiveness of youth is helpful in understanding youth-led innovation,
without assuming ‘youth’ to describe a homogeneous group the members of which share
all common characteristics.
A developmental perspective assumes that the young person’s capability to innovate
increases with age and is acquired or developed in the transition to adulthood. This view
implies that attention should be given to the role of adults and existing organisational
structures in creating the capacity within which this capability can be realised.54 From a
human rights perspective, ‘youth’ is seen as a social rather than a biological life stage. From
this position, the starting point is the recognition of the rights of young people, including a
right to participate actively as citizens and an expectation that they can do so. Finally, and
irrespective of the balance struck between developmental needs and citizenship rights, it is
important to recognise ‘youth’ as being a cultural process too.
Whilst the age boundaries may change in accordance with time and place, there is now a
universal recognition that ‘childhood’ and ‘youth’ are constituted within social ‘spaces’.55
These spaces are constructed partly by adults as they seek to develop the next generation,
for example within schools, colleges and universities. This objective is central to the
developmental perspective and much innovation literature addresses changing perspectives
on this socialisation in an increasingly competitive world. But young people themselves
also create spaces, leading to the recognition that ‘youth’ can be understood as a cultural,
or subcultural, process. For Moss and Petrie, the ‘spaces’ of childhood and youth are best
seen as “predominantly sites for civic participation, with technologies at the service of those
who frequent them, rather than a conduit through which such technologies are applied to
local populations on behalf of the state”.56 More generally though, childhood and youth
culture are actively constructed across a range of contexts and through a variety of media.
Innovative approaches may occur in any of these places.

16
Youth-led innovation Enhancing the skills and capacity of the next generation of innovators
17
57. Shah, S. (2000) Sources and Patterns
of Innovation in a Consumer Products
Field: Innovations in Sporting Equipment
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
‘Sloan Working Paper #4105.’ Boston:
MIT. Available at: http://opensource.
mit.edu/papers/shahsportspaper.pdf
[Accessed on 9 December 2008]. p.12.
58. Ibid. p.2.
There are three distinct domains in which youth-led innovation occurs
In order to develop a framework of innovative behaviour – and to consider how best to
support it – we need also to understand ‘youth’ as a context for development, citizenship
and culture. Context refers here to the areas of political, social, economic and cultural
activity as well as the specific market and service sectors in which innovation might take
place. The literature falls broadly into the three domains identified as commercial/service,
civic/political and cultural/subcultural in Figure 1.
In the commercial/service sphere, young people are consumers and producers of goods and
services, which can be provided through private, public, voluntary and not-for-profit sector
organisations and agencies. In this sphere, we are interested particularly in the innovative
nature of the processes of consumption and production within an organisational setting.
In the civic/political domain, young people are understood first as citizens and we are
interested in the innovative nature of their civic engagement and political activism. The
third domain identified is cultural, subcultural or countercultural activity in which the more
anarchic characteristics of youth are often played out, such as the ‘flower-power’ culture of
the 1960s. Commercial or civic spin-offs from such cultural activity can take place in fashion
(flared trousers), music (American West Coast) and diet (macrobiotic) or anti-war activism.
In each domain, examples of youth-led innovation range from those that are entirely youth-
led, to those initiated by adults but influenced or appropriated by young people. In each
domain, the process of innovation occurs and the capacity for further innovation may
develop. The types of innovation in each domain are discussed in turn.
Domain 1: The commercial and public service sectors
Some individuals’ talents or successes lead them to become involved in innovation in sports,
music, creative and performing arts or as commercial entrepreneurs. Often they are ‘lead-
users’ who have a “high need for an innovation and they experience that need ahead of
the bulk of the target market”.57 Their motivation might involve trying to outshine their
peers, seeking admiration or pushing the limits of existing boundaries or technologies in the
field. Some might simply be interested in making money. Generally, youth-led innovation
in this domain involves less challenge to the status quo than that in either of the other two
domains. Often, lead-users innovate where the market demand has not been established.
Skateboarding, snowboarding and windsurfing are good examples. Shah’s study of
innovation in sporting equipment for these activities shows that most innovations were not
introduced by large companies, but “developed by a few early and active participants in the
new sports – lead users who built innovative equipment for themselves, their friends”.58
3. We identified youth-led
innovation in different
sectors and contexts

16
17
Youth-led innovation Enhancing the skills and capacity of the next generation of innovators
59. Larry Stanley, windsurfer, quoted in Shah,
S. op.cit. p.14.
60. Ibid. p.3.
61. Ibid. p.11.
62. Jeppesen, L. B. and Molin, M. (2003)
Consumers as co-developers: learning and
innovation outside the firm. ‘Technology
Analysis and Strategic Management.’ 15,
(3), pp.363-383.
63. Rolfe, H. and Crowley, T. (2008) ‘Work-
related Learning for an Innovation
Nation.’ London: NESTA.
Typically these lead-users were ‘very young’ in their teens or early twenties and technically
unsophisticated. Often they worked together to develop innovations:
… it [innovation] was happening daily and we were all helping each other and giving
each other ideas, and we’d brainstorm and go out and do this and the next day the guy
would do it a little better…59
The process of innovation involved these lead-users testing out the products:
They evolved their innovations via learning-by-doing in their novel and rapidly evolving
fields. They would begin by building a prototype using simple tools and materials,
immediately try it out under real field conditions, discover problems, make revisions
within hours, and then try again.60
Many went on to build businesses from their products, often to support their sporting
activities. Some of these became leading companies in their field; others closed as the
innovator followed other lifestyle choices. Shah gives the example of ‘the Hawaiians’, a
group of up to seven people in their early twenties who lived together in a house in Kailua,
Hawaii in the 1970s. They windsurfed daily in high wind and wave conditions, creating
various windsurfing techniques and tricks for the wave conditions. “New needs emerged –
needs that the existing equipment could not fulfil. They created innovations in windsurfing
equipment in order to tailor the equipment to the techniques and conditions they were
experiencing.”61
Other examples relate to online computer gaming communities. Jeppesen and Molin’s study
showed how lead-users work together to stretch the boundaries of existing games.62
But not all commercial youth-led innovation is about new products. Innovation in product
or service design is just as important. Two types of design can be distinguished: those where
organisations tap into innovative young people and use their ideas to enhance product
design and promotion; and those in which adults work with young people to develop
products or services and enhance their innovation skills. Whilst generally the latter has the
aim of developing products for the benefit of youth, the first example attempts to generate
(and sell) products for the organisation. Examples of the latter are third sector organisations
assisting young people to set up ethical businesses, as described in Rolfe and Crowley.63
Figure 1: The three domains of youth-led innovation.
Civic/Political
Youth-led
innovation
Commercial/
Service
Cultural/
Subcultural
Increasing youth-ledness
Increasing youth-ledness
Increasing youth-ledness

18
Youth-led innovation Enhancing the skills and capacity of the next generation of innovators
19
64. Heath, J. and Potter, A. (2004) op.cit.
p.14, p.220.
65. Mason, M. (2008) ‘The Pirate’s Dilemma:
How youth culture is reinventing
capitalism.’ London: Free Press.
66. Moses, L. (2007) Spring Look. ‘Media
Week.’ 19 February 2007.
67. Shah, S. (2000) op.cit. p.17.
68. See www.young-enterprise.org.uk
69. Rolfe, H. and Crowley, T. (2008) op.cit.
p.18.
70. Sebba, J., Brown, N., Steward, S.,
Galton, M. and James, M. (2007) ‘An
investigation of personalised learning
approaches used by schools.’ Nottingham,
DfES Publications. p.26.
71. Druin, A. (2002) The role of children in
the design of new technology. ‘Behaviour
and Information Technology.’ 21 (1),
pp.1-25.
72. Druin, A. and Fast, C. (2002) The Child as
Learner, Critic, Inventor, and Technology
Design Partner: An Analysis of Three
Years of Swedish Student Journals.
‘International Journal of Technology and
Design Education.’ 12(3) pp.189-213.
73. Cairncross, S. and Waugh, S. (2005)
Involving Preschoolers in Design of
Interactive Multimedia for Learning: An
Activity-Driven Approach. In Kommers,
P. and Richards, G. (eds.) ‘EdMedia:
Proceedings of the 17th annual World
Conference on Educational Multimedia.’
pp.1117-1124. Vienna: Association for the
Advancement of Computers in Education.
74. Nesset, V. and Large, A. (2004) Children
in the information technology design
process: A review of theories and their
applications. ‘Library and Information
Science Research.’ 26 (2) pp.140-161.
75. Ibid. p.141.
Companies seek out new products or adaptations of products they hope will be the next ‘big
thing’. Some organisations put together ‘cool reports’ which keep “tabs on youth culture,
monitoring what the innovators are doing and noting how the early adopters are reacting”.64
Others enlist the services of young innovators to help identify new trends before they
become part of the mainstream. Mason reports on innovation that arises from individuals
who start fashions that are taken up and developed by others, creating movements or
trends.65 Moses describes how the magazine Your Look, aimed at teenagers interested in
a similar mix of beauty and fashion news to that already available in the original In Style
magazine, allows readers to upload their own fashion photos through its presence on the
MySpace social networking website. By doing so, Your Look both creates future buyers of
In Style and ensures that readers’ voices are heard.66
Shah suggested it was difficult for sports equipment organisations to link to the innovation
process: innovators in their study were young and did not have a college education. Instead,
some manufacturers hired lead-users as consultants or teams of gifted sports practitioners
to tour the country to demonstrate the equipment. They then tested any new equipment
models developed by the manufacturer.67
Where adults work with young people to develop products or services and enhance their
innovation skills, adults create the space within which young people innovate. In this sense,
these examples build both young people’s capability and capacity in the system. The Young
Enterprise Scheme, which brings volunteers from business into the classroom to work with
teachers and students to improve young people’s entrepreneurial skills, is an example.68
Rolfe and Crowley, drawing on research on how employers engage in work-related learning,
noted that some schools and colleges used innovative approaches including business
enterprise challenges, involving employers in teaching, regeneration projects and design.
Very often these activities were student-led.69 There are also many cases where pupils have
been involved in redesigning school playgrounds or equipment. In Sebba et al., we describe
a primary school where the pupils were asked to evaluate the learning potential of the local
museum and make recommendations for its redesign:
I asked the children to go on a trip ... to evaluate the museum. They went for a typical
morning and then in the afternoon we put them into groups and they evaluated positives
and negatives of their experience and what they’d like to see improved. Each group
prepared a speech for the museum staff, curator and management of the museum to
listen to... All the things that the museum staff had never thought of, because they’re
evaluated by adults for adult provision. (Primary case study interview, senior manager)70
Further evidence about innovation in design activities comes from Druin and Fast who
describe how in Sweden, young children help to design new storytelling technologies.71,72
One child suggested a storytelling machine which led adults and children to design low-tech
prototypes. Similarly, Cairncross and Waugh drawing on Druin and Fast’s research, looked at
use of multimedia in maths activities with preschoolers.73 They noted that while children’s
ideas were welcomed as informing design, selection of which ideas to develop was usually
led by adults on the justification that not all ideas put forward by children are workable and
that they might conflict with pedagogical goals.
Information technology has produced further examples of adults undertaking the initial
design, with children involved later in the process. Nesset and Large suggest that software
companies often employ adults to test the usability of their products as children are seen as
too unruly or difficult.74 If children are involved, they are observed, recorded and analysed
by adults who thus make the decisions and maintain control. This raises issues about the
power relationship between adult and young person in the innovation process:
... because the users, whether adult or child, are only involved after the technology has
been designed, they have little or no control in the process.75

18
19
Youth-led innovation Enhancing the skills and capacity of the next generation of innovators
76. Jeppesen, L.B. and Molin, M. (2003)
op.cit. p.363. This article is not specifically
about youth but young people figure
highly in these communities.
77. Ibid.
78. von Hippel, E. and Katz, R. (2002)
Shifting innovation to users via toolkits.
‘Management Science.’ 48, pp.821–833.
79. Thomke, S. and von Hippel, E. (2002)
Customers as innovators: a new way to
create value. ‘Harvard Business Review.’
80 (4), pp.74–81.
80. Flowers, S. (2008b) op.cit. p.15.
81. Flowers, S. (2008a) op.cit. p.15.
82. See www.redbullflugelbinder.com
83. Kirshner, B. (2007) Introduction: Youth
Activism as a Context for Learning and
Development. ‘American Behavioral
Scientist.’ 51(3) pp.367-379.
In some cases companies provide spaces for youth innovation. Such spaces often rely on
new technologies and are (often discreetly) branded around key products of potential
interest to young people. In this way, companies provide some sort of social function, whilst
appealing to the youth market. The innovation might be a side-product or an integral part
of the operation.
Jeppesen and Molin describe online computer gaming communities where consumers
“communicate and exchange ideas and software that extend the game from its original
shape”.76 They explain how companies can encourage and tap into these communities in order
to enhance product-life and generate new product ideas, at minimum cost. One approach
involves a ‘product space’, where consumers can interact online and organisations can talk
to consumers; 83 per cent of all computer games products offer producer-established online
communities.77 In these spaces, groups of consumers innovate around products; they might
develop new features which become available online, which other consumers can download.
Companies in turn might contact and deal directly with individuals who have ideas they wish
to pursue further.
This is explored further in Flowers:
The involvement of (firm-level) users in firms’ product development processes by
developing and distributing supplier-designed ‘toolkits’, enabling users to engage in
innovation by developing their own custom products (von Hippel and Katz, 2002;78
Thomke and von Hippel, 200279) has been explored, although their role in influencing
the direction of user innovation is less clear.80
A previous report to NESTA showed how the Microsoft XNA toolkit enabled young people
to create their own games without having to be able to program, and this then enables
them to ‘publish’ their games.81 This is now common in the gaming world and an important
contribution to youth-led innovation as it increases capacity to innovate by lowering barriers.
Another commercial company, Red Bull, has developed a social-networking site aimed at
fostering innovation and providing young consumers with support for their ideas.82 The
Flugelbinder site, which discreetly carries Red Bull branding, allows users to create a
Thought Locker — a profile page, where they can securely store ideas, photos and business
proposals. Ideas can also be ‘banked’ there via email or SMS. Those signing up to the site
can browse others’ ideas, chat to like-minded users and access articles on how to bring their
plans to life. It also features brain-teasers aimed at fostering innovation. The project was
developed in partnership with youth marketing agency Livity.
Domain 2: Civic engagement and political activism
Civic engagement and political activism can create opportunities for young people to
develop innovative ideas that benefit their communities and society. There is an extensive
contemporary literature on civic engagement and political activism amongst young people,
especially in the US.83 The ‘civic’ nature of engagement and activism derives from the
idea of the citizen being a member of a political community. However, what counts as
‘political’ varies in the literature as does the definition of the ‘community’ in question. Civic
participation by young people is defined as that which is facilitated and shaped as part
of the socialisation process for young people (including school councils and community
volunteering schemes). It can also include action that is taken independently (such as voting
and campaigning). In the first case, citizenship is something that is transmitted indirectly
through mechanisms designed for the purpose. In the second case, it is something that is
claimed directly by young people acting as members of a wider community. The intention is

20
Youth-led innovation Enhancing the skills and capacity of the next generation of innovators
21
84. Prout, A. (n.d.) Childhood – 2025 and
Beyond, Beyond Current Horizons,
Challenge Paper. Available at: www.
beyondcurrenthorizons.org.uk/wp-
content/uploads/bch_challenge_paper_
childhood_alan_prout.pdf [Accessed on 4
December 2008].
85. Wilkinson H. and Mulgan, G. (1995)
‘Freedom’s children: work, relationships
and politics for 18-34 yr olds in Britain
today.’ London: Demos.
86. Cohn, J. (1992) A Lost Political
Generation? ‘The American Prospect.’ 9,
pp.30-38.
87. OECD (2001) ‘What Schools for the
Future?’ Paris: OECD.
88. Flanagan, C. (2008) ‘Young People’s Civic
Engagement and Political development.’
London: Routledge.
89. Kirshner, B. (2007) op.cit. p.20.
90. Leadbeater, C. and Goss, S. (1998) ‘Civic
Entrepreneurship.’ London: Demos/Public
Management Foundation. p.16.
91. UNICEF (2007) op.cit. p.6.
92. Madoerin, K. (2008) ‘Mobilising Children
and Youth into their own – and Youth-led
Organisations.’ Johannesburg: REPSSI.
p.3.
93. Cornwall, A. and Coelho, V. (2004) New
Democratic Spaces? ‘IDS Bulletin.’ 35 (2).
94. Cornwall, A. and Coelho, V. (2006) ‘Spaces
for change? The Politics of Participation
in New Democratic Arenas.’ London:
Zed. p.1,
95. Bell, B.L. (2005) ‘Children, Youth and
Civic (dis)Engagement: Digital Technology
and Citizenship.’ Toronto: CRACIN.
96. Weller, S. (2003) “Teach us something
useful”: contested spaces of teenagers’
citizenship. ‘Space and Polity.’ 7, (2),
pp.153-171. Cited in Bell op.cit. p.15.
that the former will lead to the latter, but it is important first to distinguish between the two
types of engagement and activism.
Understandably, given the pervasive recent concern among adults in the West about the
disengagement of young people from democratic participation84,85,86 and from formal
education,87 the developmental paradigm dominates the academic literature.88 Typologies of
participation are usually enclosed within a socialisation discourse of transition to adulthood
through ‘youth development’ or ‘empowerment’. Kirshner, in reviewing the literature on
youth activism, takes this developmental view of it being about transitions in adolescence
and suggests that “activism groups connect youth to mainstream civic institutions”.89 He
proposes four distinctive qualities of learning environments that characterise youth activism
groups: collective problem solving, youth-adult interaction, exploration of alternative frames
for identity, and bridges to academic and civic institutions. The emphasis in Kirshner’s paper
is on activism as an innovative form of learning to support the transition to adulthood, but
it could be regarded as an innovative form of social action that may lead to social changes.
The capacity for youth innovation that is derived from the cultivation of a greater civic
sensibility and responsibility in young people varies. In some accounts, the ‘civic’ is defined
broadly to include public sector services and their reform, as in the ‘civic entrepreneurship’
celebrated by Leadbeater and Goss. This approach extends the more familiar idea of ‘social
entrepreneurship’ and sees experimentation and innovation in public organisations in
the UK as being “as much about political renewal as it is about managerial change”.90 In
this case, renewal and change can be stimulated by enabling young people to participate
actively in risk-taking and innovation.
The connection between social entrepreneurship and what is also sometimes called ‘civil
engagement’ has been particularly influential in the field of international development.91
Here the need to re-position children as active citizens who initiate and lead change is
increasingly pressing in the face of the social catastrophe caused in some countries by
poverty, war and HIV/AIDS. In this case, the recognition of the need for innovative ways
of providing psycho-social support when family and school cannot be relied upon is
linked to the right of children under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the
Child (UNCRC) to form and join associations. Madoerin champions the idea of ‘child-led
associations’ that are said to foster the development of well-being and life skills through
self-organisation, advocacy and collective action. These are protective mechanisms in
severely challenging social and economic circumstances but they are also explicitly civic in
their focus, being intended to “foster democratic principles and democratic skills” as well.92
Others working within this field draw less on the idea of entrepreneurship and more on a
commitment to the development of ‘new democratic spaces’.93 These are situated at the
‘interface between the state and society’ and either provided by the state or ‘conquered by
civil society demands for inclusion.’94 New democratic spaces are unequivocally ‘spaces’ for
political participation. At this end of the ‘civic’ spectrum, political activism and mobilisation
are of explicit interest. They can take place within programmes of ‘youth development’, in
independent organisations and social movements, or in the intermediary spaces discussed
by Cornwall and Coelho.
However, Bell noted that some young people use ‘spaces’ available to them to engage as
citizens, for example skate parks or volunteering rather than voting.95 In this example, young
people are seen as active citizens as they participate as political actors in the reconstruction
of spaces such as skate parks. Weller looks at citizenship through children’s voices and
experiences.96 She states that “spaces such as skate parks illustrate the often hidden
geographies of citizenship, not just in terms of practical participation but on a much deeper
level of identity and belonging”. This suggests different citizenship practices by young
people than those of adults, which tend to be in more traditional spaces and opportunities.
This implies the need for a widening conceptualisation of civic engagement.

20
21
Youth-led innovation Enhancing the skills and capacity of the next generation of innovators
97. These include SchoolsNet Youth Advisory
Board at www.schoolnet.ca/syabccjr/e/
home.asp and the National Rural Youth
Network – www.ruralyouth.ca.
98. Bell, B.L. (2005) op.cit. p.15.
99. www.ayn.ca
100. Matthews, H. (2001) op.cit. p.16
101. www.votesat16.org.uk
102. www.getreadyforchange.org.uk
103. NUS (2008) ‘Strategic Plan 2009-10.’
London: NUS.
104. Bell, B.L. (2005) op.cit. p.18
105. Megyery, K. (1991) Preface in Megyery,
K. (ed.) ‘Youth in Canadian Politics:
Participation and Involvement.’ Toronto:
Dundurn Press and Minister of Supply
and Services.
106. Montgomery, K., Gottleb-Rhodes,
B. and Larson, G.O. (2004) ‘Youth as
e-citizens: Engaging the digital genera-
tion.’ Washington, DC: Centre for Social
Media, School of Communication. p.2.
107. Davies, T. and Cranston, P. (2008) ‘Youth
Work and Social Networking.’ Leicester:
The National Youth Agency.
108. Loader, B. (ed.) (2007) ‘Young
Citizens in the Digital Age.’ Abingdon:
Routledge.
109. Raynes, G.K. and Walker, L. (2008)
Our Space: Online Civic Engagement
Tools for Youth. In Bennet, L. ‘Civic Life
Online: Learning how digital media can
engage Youth.’ Cambridge MA: The
MIT Press.
110. Valenzuela. S., Park N. and Kee, K.
(2008) ‘Lessons from Facebook: the ef-
fects of Social Network Sites on College
Students’ Social Capital.’ In 9th Interna-
tional Symposium on Online journalism.
Austin: Texas.
111. Hara, N. (2008) Internet use for political
mobilization: Voices of participants.
‘First Monday.’ 13, 7. Available at:
http://firstmonday.org
112. Wired Blog Network (2008) ‘Propelled
by Internet, Barack Obama Wins
Presidency.’ Available at; http://www.
blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/11/
propelled-by-in.html [Accessed on 13
February 2009].
The question for us here is the extent to which these civic and political activities might be
said to be both youth-led and innovative. A number of examples can be found of youth-
led mobilisation and activism. Direct youth influence on decisions is enabled through the
government-based initiatives in Canada97 which provide opportunities for young people to
“act in direct relationship with the government and provide input on policy and programme
development”.98 Bell cited the Canadian Aboriginal Youth Network,99 a government funded
website, run by youth for youth and where young people make the decisions. This resonates
with Matthews’ suggestion that structures should be created in response to demand from
young people themselves.100
Prominent in the UK have been the recent campaigns respectively by the British Youth
Council (BYC), campaigning with others for the right to vote at 16101 and by the Children’s
Rights Alliance for England (CRAE), for the full acceptance by the UK government of the
UNCRC.102 While the intended outcomes of these campaigns may be regarded as innovative,
the campaigning methods used in each case are not especially innovative, involving
lobbying, petitioning and marching. Similarly in the US, where there has been a far greater
level of independent political activism around school reform and community mobilisation,
the methods have certainly been youth-led but they have also been fairly traditional.
More interesting here is the political work of the National Union of Students, one of the
best examples of an established youth-led activist group in the UK. The NUS is explicit
in this respect, having the vision of itself as “a pioneering, innovative and powerful
campaigning organisation”.103 It was reported by participants at the focus groups to be
regularly consulted by politicians. It ran an award-winning campaign in September 2007
that forced the HSBC bank to reverse its decision to impose charges on graduate overdrafts.
What made this campaign innovative was the use of digital media, specifically Facebook,
the social networking site, to generate the student interest and press coverage that forced
the hand of HSBC.
Others have noted the potential powerful role of technology in youth activism. Bell, in his
review of youth civic engagement, notes that young people may be developing ‘new forms
of social activism’104 and ‘new types of politics’.105 Montgomery et al.106 illustrate this when
they describe:
... a low-profile civic upsurge created for, and sometimes by, young people which has
been taking root on the internet. Hundreds of websites have been created to encourage
and facilitate youth civic engagement.
There is an emergent academic literature on the use of social networking sites to facilitate
youth participation, civic engagement and political activism. This is mostly addressed from
a ‘youth development’ perspective.107,108,109,110 This approach has been adopted in the UK
by the Local Government Information Unit (LGiU) Children’s Services Network, which
has started to organise seminars to promulgate the opportunities of new media to local
councils and other agencies. However, it is also possible to find accounts that consider social
networking as a grass-roots method of mobilisation as well as a facilitated mode of civic
socialisation.111
The most striking contemporary example of innovative, youth-led politically activist social
networking is the My.BarackObama campaign. Chris Hughes, the designer of Facebook and
still only 24 years of age at the time, took a decisive leadership role in this interactive, online
campaign from 2007. Text messaging, web pages and online action groups were employed
to mobilise grass-roots support, to “fight the underground, email whisper campaigns and
robo-calls that surfaced in battleground states”112 and to get the vote out on the day.
The result was the huge increase in the youth vote that in large part produced the Obama
victory. It has contributed powerfully to the sense that earlier concerns about the political

22
Youth-led innovation Enhancing the skills and capacity of the next generation of innovators
23
113. Winograd, M. and Hais, M. (2008) ‘Mil-
lenial Makeover, MySpace, YouTube, and
the future of American Politics.’ New
Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
114. Camino, L. A. (2000) Youth-Adult
Partnerships: Entering New Territory in
Community Work and Research. ‘Applied
Developmental Science.’ 4(supp 1)
pp.11-20.
115. e.g. Zeldin, S., Petrokubi, J. and Mac-
Neil, C. (2008) Youth-adult partnerships
in decision-making: Disseminating and
implementing an innovative idea into
established organisations and communi-
ties. ‘American Journal of Community
Psychology.’ 41, pp.262-277.
116. Whitty, G. and Wisby, E. (2007) op.cit.
p.13.
117. Matthews, H. (2001) op.cit. p.15.
118. Barber, T. (2007) Young people and
civic participation: A conceptual review.
‘Youth and Policy.’ 96, pp.19-39.
119. Brake, M. (1980) ‘The Sociology of
Youth Culture and Youth Subcultures.’
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
p.8; p.23.
120. Lévi-Strauss (1962) The Savage Mind
used the word ‘bricolage’ to describe
any spontaneous action which makes
creative and resourceful use of whatever
materials are available regardless of their
original purpose.
121. Hebdige, D. (1979) ‘Sub-Cultures – the
Meaning of Style.’ London: Methuen.
122. Brake, M. (1980) op.cit. p.12.
disengagement of what in the US is known as the Millennial Generation (born 1982-2003)
can now be set aside.113 It seems likely that social networking will continue to be employed
innovatively by young people, both independently for purposes of direct political action
(as happened in the case of the spontaneous campaigns that broke out in the aftermath
of youth shootings in London in 2008), and as part of existing organisational strategies for
participation and civic engagement in schools and youth groups.
Some of these examples, such as school councils, remain predominantly about adults
creating opportunities for engagement, rather than youth innovation to encourage youth
civic engagement. For example, in Camino’s study of youth-adult partnerships, young people
were sometimes active participants, but they were participating in opportunities created by
adults.114 The extensive research by Zeldin and colleagues, on youth-adult partnerships in
decision-making notes the benefits of youth and adult collaboration in implementation of
innovation, but much remains adult-led.115 Innovation is possible, but not probable in these
examples. Whitty and Wisby reported that 95 per cent of schools have school councils but
most tackle issues relating to their school’s environment and facilities rather than teaching
and learning.116 While only a few school councils currently do so, 45 per cent of teachers
surveyed in the study reported that they would like pupils involved in staff appointments and
30 per cent suggested that it was appropriate for them to have representation on schools’
governing bodies. The authors concluded that training and support for pupils is crucial if
school councils are to genuinely build and develop pupil capability to lead and innovate.
Adult-created structures such as school councils are often regarded as only reaching the
most articulate young people. Matthews, in a review of the literature on participatory
structures, concluded that youth fora are a good way of encouraging participation but that
they are an inappropriate way of engaging many young people, especially those who are
traditionally hardest to reach.117 In aiming to include young people, some agencies establish
structures and bureaucracies that only involve a ‘select’ few, sidelining others, whose voices
in decision-making are lessened as a result. Hence, in drawing conclusions about the impact
of youth-led innovation, inclusivity needs to be considered.
Some, usually adult-initiated innovations, are intended to improve conformity for example,
by encouraging more youth into the labour market, attempting to improve school attendance
or initiate schemes to reduce crime. Barber notes that attempts to engage young people
politically are sometimes aimed at achieving greater conformity.118
Domain 3: Cultural, subcultural or countercultural innovation
Like youth activism, innovation that can be characterised as subcultural or countercultural is,
at least initially, a form of rebellion or exploration of difference and an apparent rejection of
the mainstream. In a useful review, Brake defines subcultures as “meaning systems, modes of
expression or life styles developed by groups in subordinate structural positions in response
to dominant meaning systems”.119 Based on studies from the 1970s and early 1980s, Brake
identifies three main subcultural groups who develop innovative practices: ‘delinquent
youth’, mainly adolescent working class males, who range from disaffected or rebellious
young people to young offenders; ‘cultural rebels’, who tend to be middle class bohemians,
engaged in art and music; and ‘politically militant youth’ who are involved in radical politics.
Brake argues that the common factor between these categories is young people striving to
find new identities and forms of expression, creating distinctive and innovative life styles,
values and ideologies, summarised in the terms ‘bricolage’120 and ‘style’.121 As the symbolic
representation of a subcultural group, innovative style encompasses ‘image’, including dress
and hairstyle, ‘demeanour’ or posture and expression, and ‘argot’, the special language of
the group.122

22
23
Youth-led innovation Enhancing the skills and capacity of the next generation of innovators
123. Cohen, S. (1972) ‘Moral Panics and Folk
Devils.’ London: MacGibbon and Kee.
124. Willis, P. (1978) ‘Profane Culture.’ Lon-
don: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
125. Hebdige, D. (1979) op.cit. p.23.
126. Hall, S. and Jefferson, T. (1976)
‘Resistance Through Rituals: Youth
subcultures in post-war Britain.’ London:
Hutchinson.
127. Brake, M. (1980) op.cit. p.23.
128. Hebdige, D. (1979) op.cit. p.96.
129. Roszak, T. (1968) ‘The Making of a
Counterculture: Reflections on the
technocratic society and its youthful
opposition.’ New York: Doubleday and
Co. Inc.
130. Brake, M. (1980) op.cit. p.23.
131. Markoff, J. (2005) ‘What the doormouse
said: How the 60’s counterculture
shaped the personal computer industry.’
London: Penguin.
132. McRobbie, A. and Garber, J. (1976)
Girls and Subcultures. In, Hall, S. and
Jefferson, T. (eds.) (1976) op.cit. See
also McRobbie on girls and punk:
McRobbie, A. (1980) Settling accounts
with subcultures: a feminist critique. In
McRobbie., A. (2000) ‘Feminism and
Youth Culture.’ 2nd edition. London:
Macmillan. pp.26-43.
133. Frith, S. (1978) ‘The Sociology of Rock.’
London: Constable.
134. Cunningham, H. (1998) ‘Digital cultures:
the view from the dance floor.’ London:
UCL Press.
135. Hodkinson. P. (2002) ‘Goth, identity,
style and subculture.’ Oxford: Berg.
136. Muggleton, D. (2000) ‘Inside Subcul-
ture: The Post Modern Meaning of Life.’
Oxford: Berg.
137. Hodkinson, P. (2002) op.cit p.29.
138. Hebdige, D. (1979) op.cit. p.23.
139. Thornton, S. (1995) ‘Club Cultures:
Music, Media and Subcultural Capital.’
Cambridge: Polity.
140. Hodkinson, P. (2002) op.cit. p.7.
141. McRobbie, A. (1994) ‘Postmodern-
ism and Popular Culture.’ London:
Routledge.
142. Cunningham, H. (1998) op.cit. p.24.
143. Flowers, S. (2008b) op.cit. p.15.
Many ethnographic studies of subcultural groups carried out in the UK in the 1970s
document such groups and their particular innovative practices: for example, Cohen’s study
of mods and rockers,123 Willis on hippies,124 and Hebdige on Rastafarianism and punk125
(see also Hall and Jefferson).126 Punk is a particularly good example of how a subcultural
group developed and adopted an anti-commercialist life style127 with a unique style of
dress (bondage, safety pins), hair (shaved heads with multi-coloured spikes) and music
(exemplified by the Sex Pistols), designed to shock and criticise establishment culture.
Ironically, this highly innovative subcultural style was adopted by designers such as Vivienne
Westwood and music producers such as Malcolm McLaren who helped make it part of
mainstream culture and commercially lucrative. Hebdige argues that this is a predictable and
unavoidable process: “Youth cultural styles may begin by issuing symbolic challenges, but
they must inevitably end by establishing new sets of conventions”.128
However, the earlier 1960s countercultural hippie movement in the USA, with its anti-
consumerist lifestyle and use of hallucinogenic drugs charted in the classic text by Roszak,
has arguably had a profound, long lasting impact, in some surprising ways.129 Brake makes the
case that alternative life styles, such as New Age travellers, and radical political movements
such as feminism and gay rights, can all be seen to have roots in the hippie counterculture.130
Markoff argues that personal computing developments from California grew out of one
arm of the 1960s countercultural movements. Use of psychedelic drugs, mainly LSD, by
pioneering engineers in Silicon Valley, was the inspiration for many computing discoveries.
Computing was also a way of avoiding the Vietnam draft. Markoff gives a useful analysis
of the sources of innovation and argues that the impact on subsequent technological
development was significant.131
A gendered dimension of subcultural innovation is largely absent in most 1970s subcultural
studies. McRobbie and Garber challenge the invisibility of young women in subcultures
and stress the different ways in which girls define their identity in creative ways.132 Frith
argues that music is one arena in which women have sometimes been able to challenge
traditional culture and develop innovative, at times disturbing styles, particularly in punk
music – Siouxsie and the Banshees are a good example.133 Women playing a fuller part in
innovative subcultural practices can be seen in Cunningham’s insider study of the innovative
use of technology in underground clubs and dance culture.134
More recently, Hodkinson’s insider study of goth identity and subculture in the 1990s
includes a comprehensive critique of both traditional and postmodernist subcultural
theory.135 Criticising postmodernists such as Muggleton136 who claim that mass media and
commercialisation have led to fragmentation and loss of youth innovation, Hodkinson
argues that creativity and individuality can still be found in subcultural groups such as goths.
He puts forward four criteria for more recent subcultural groups: identity, distinctiveness,
autonomy and commitment.137 Unlike the resistance and opposition to commercialisation
found in earlier subcultures,138 both Hodkinson and Thornton argue that the media and
commercial enterprise are often integrally involved in modern subcultural innovation,139
although Hodkinson makes a clear distinction between commercially motivated, mass media
and the ‘internal DIY network’140 of small, alternative record labels, underground DJs and
home-made fanzines. McRobbie141 and Cunningham142 also stress the role of small scale
entrepreneurialism in developing and sustaining innovative underground dance and club
cultures, sometimes verging on illegal practices.
Taking this further, Flowers143 describes ‘outlaw users’, defined as individuals or groups who
actively oppose or ignore technical standards, existing products, systems or legal frameworks
to share digital content such as music, develop software or exploit security loopholes in IT
systems. He suggests that ‘outlaw innovation’ has impacted on the nature and direction of
mainstream efforts to innovate. It operates informally, and is often motivated by curiosity
and challenge, rather than by commercial interest. As with many forms of rebellious activity,
attempting to stimulate it, thus giving it a level of acceptance, may de-motivate those involved.

24
Youth-led innovation Enhancing the skills and capacity of the next generation of innovators
25
144. McRobbie, A. (1980) op.cit. p.24.
145. Willis, P. (1990) ‘Common Culture:
symbolic work at play in the everyday
cultures of the young.’ Milton Keynes:
Open University Press.
146. McRobbie, A. (1994) op.cit. p.24.
147. Abbott, C. (1998) Making connec-
tions: young people and the internet.
In Sefton-Green, J. (1998) ‘Digital
Diversions: Youth Culture in the Age
of Multimedia.’ London: UCL Press.
pp.84-105.
148. An emoticon is a symbol(s) used for
emotional communication in writing or
messages.
149. Greenfield, P. M. and Subrahmanyam,
K. (2003) Online discourse in a teen
chatroom: New codes and new modes of
coherence in a visual medium. ‘Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology.’ 24
(6), pp.713–738.
150. McKay, S., Thurlow, C. and Zimmer-
man, H. (2005) Wired whizzes or
techno-slaves? Young people and their
emergent communication technologies.
In Williams, A. and Thurlow, C. (eds.)
‘Talking adolescence: Perspectives on
communication in the teenage years.’
New York: Peter Lang. p.192.
151. Merchant, G. (2001) Teenagers in
cyberspace: an investigation of language
use and language change in internet
chatrooms. ‘Journal of Research in Read-
ing.’ 24 (3), pp.293-306.
152. Merchant, G. (2005a) Digikids: cool
dudes and the new writing. ‘E–Learning.’
2 (1), pp.50-60.
153. Merchant, G. (2005b) Electric Involve-
ment: Identity performance in children’s
informal digital writing. ‘Discourse.’ 26
(3), pp.301-314.
154. Merchant, G., Dickinson, P., Burnett,
C. and Myers, J. (2006) Do you like
dogs or writing? Identity performance
in children’s digital message exchange.
‘English in Education.’ 40 (3), pp.21-38.
155. Thurlow, C. (2003). Generation Txt? The
sociolinguistics of young people’s text-
messaging. ‘Discourse Analysis Online’
(online) Available at: http://www.shu.
ac.uk/daol/ [Accessed on 13 February
2009]. p.196.
156. Jeppesen, L. B. and Molin, M. (2003)
op.cit. pp.18.
157. Marsh, K. (1995) Children’s singing
games: composition in the playground?
‘Research Studies in Music Education.’
(4) pp.2-11.
158. Sefton-Green, J. and Buckingham, D.
(1998) Digital visions: children’s ‘crea-
tive’ uses of multimedia technologies
In Sefton-Green, J. (1998) op.cit.
pp.62-83.
There are a number of examples through which innovation has been used to explore identity
in youth (see, in particular, McRobbie144 and Willis145). As literature on diffusion theory
suggests, the small numbers of innovators rely on early adopters to encourage trends and
movements. Yet, examples given here describe how, when safe spaces for innovation are
created, changes or innovations can occur on a regular basis by young people exploring
parts of their identities. McRobbie146 stresses young women’s creative and innovative use of
mass media and commercial products, which can take place in the home as well as in public.
One area from which innovation emerges from exploration of youth identity is
eCommunication. The innovative processes in e-technology communication have
changed some of the ways in which innovation develops, focusing on interaction rather
than products or services. They may combine language and visuals, mixing decoration,
aliases and abbreviations. Abbott147 studied the development of young people’s personal
homepages, early chat rooms and online communities and noted innovative combinations
of text, graphics, sound and video. Early chatrooms included innovative use of language,
emoticons148 and acronyms. Similarly, Greenfield and Subrahmanyam149 found that young
people had altered the written text register in an online chatroom to adapt the visual aspects
of computer-mediated communication by using numbers, colour and different text style. By
adapting the language, the young people were able to “keep conversational coherence …
and maintain an ongoing text stream”.150
Merchant151 similarly found that teenage girls expanded forms of communication through
chat rooms using ‘netiquette’, images, emoticons, abbreviations, phonetic spellings
and aliases. In a later study, Merchant152 noted similarly that 9-10 year olds paired with
writing partners experimented with new linguistic and visual forms leading to new ways
of communicating. In a further study focusing on email exchanges, Merchant found that
beyond linguistic innovation, 8-10 year olds developed greater autonomy, drawing on their
social and cultural identities in gender, class and ethnic-specific ways through use of email
and visual icons, for example by ‘authoring’ themselves.153,154 He suggested that these
young people are innovating by extending new forms of communication that challenge
existing language, develop peer relationships and give them a better sense of identity, as
well as acquiring new marketable skills.
Thus, young people are co-producers of the web through online magazines or blogs, often
with diary-like entries, for their peers and others. Thurlow notes that some adults fear that
these uses of communication technology mean young people are “completely reinventing,
and thereby destroying, standard (English) language use”.155 There is an extensive literature
on how texting and internet use have impacted both positively and negatively on language,
which is outside the scope of this review. However, these developments are involving young
people in an interactive innovative process that develops their group and personal identities.
A similar process occurs in computer gaming.156 Younger children, mainly girls, were found
to be innovative in the development of singing games in school playgrounds in Australia.157
Like many of the examples above, these innovations tended to be part of a collaborative
process between young people, not bound by formal instruction or adult intervention. The
innovations become widely adopted and embedded in everyday youth culture. In this sense,
models of ‘subcultural theory’ cannot explain them.
Sefton-Green and Buckingham explored the creative use of technology for innovation.158
A fifth of the secondary school pupils they interviewed were high users of IT and were
involved in graphics, animation, video and music innovations. However, they viewed their
own engagement as addressing boredom rather than as intentional innovation. Youth-led
innovation in the cultural, subcultural and countercultural domain illustrates the role that
can be played by exploring youth identity and difference as drivers for developments, many
of which were not originally intended to be innovative.

24
25
Youth-led innovation Enhancing the skills and capacity of the next generation of innovators
159. Camino, L.A. (2000) op.cit. p.23.
160. Karlin, S. (2004) Young inventors of the
world unite (Innovators International
Network). ‘Spectrum IEEE.’ 41 (3),
pp.53-55.
161. Turner, F. (2006) ‘From Counterculture
to Cyberculture.’ Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
162. YACSI (Youth Action Council on Sus-
tainable Innovation) (2002) ‘Making
Innovation Sustainable Among Youth in
Canada.’ Ottawa: Canada’s Innovation
Strategy and Practice of Innovation.
http://innovation.gc.ca/gol/innova-
tion/site.nsf/en/in02407.html
163. Ibid.
164. Triangle http://www.triangle-services.
co.uk/
165. Karlin, S. (2004) op.cit. p.26.
166. See www.younginventorsinternational.
com
167. Turner, F. (2006) op.cit. p.26.
168. Barley, S. (2007) From Counterculture
to Cyberculture In Brand, S. and Turner,
F. (2007) The Whole Earth Network and
the Rise of Digital Utopianism. ‘Adminis-
trative Science Quarterly.’ (3), p.486.
If we are to develop strategies to promote and support youth-led innovation, we must first
identify what are most likely to help and hinder such activities. The literature is helpful in
this regard. Indeed, some of the facilitators and barriers it identified were strongly confirmed
in the focus group discussions. However, a factor which is helpful for a young person at one
stage, such as support provided by a parent, teacher or youth worker, can turn into a barrier
in the development of the young person’s ideas if, for example, an adult interferes too much
or maintains too much control. Hence, the focus group participants recommended a flexible
approach. Each of the structures or media developed to facilitate youth-led innovation will
have different reaches, adoption, implementation and adaptation.
Social capital gained through social networking is an important facilitator
Social networks work in different ways to assist youth innovation.159,160,161,162 Firstly, social
interaction may facilitate the development of the innovation; secondly, social networks
might provide information about how to take innovations forward; and thirdly, social
networks can help get the innovation out to a wider audience. Groups of young people,
often ‘lead-users’, use social interactions to gather ideas, experiment and to test ideas
out on each other. Often it is the young people feeding off each other who facilitate the
innovation.
Establishing social networks and the ability to use these networks to gain advice and support
and to try out and disseminate ideas seem to be crucial facilitators. Social networks also
provide access to information and knowledge which young innovators identified as helpful
in supporting their developments.163 Opportunities for networking with others who have
innovated or overcome barriers are seen as particularly helpful. For example, Triangle164
provides advocacy and support for young people with disabilities, engaging people with
disabilities, as consultants in this process and linking individuals and groups who can then
support one another. Karlin,165 herself a youth innovator, established an online space where
young innovators can come together to support each other, get advice and swap ideas.166
Part of this social function involves linking inventors to potential sponsors, thus aiding the
move from invention to innovation.
Turner167 describes the development of The Whole Earth Catalog, which offered an alternative
vision of technology as a tool for individual and collective transformation. It facilitated
individuals educating themselves, finding inspiration and shaping their environment. It
re-imagined computers as tools for personal liberation, building virtual and alternative
communities, and crossing social frontiers. Above all else, it created social networks through
journalists and publicists promoting the necessary excitement. Barley168 commented that:
4. We identified some
powerful facilitators of
youth-led innovation

26
Youth-led innovation Enhancing the skills and capacity of the next generation of innovators
27
169. Jeppesen, L.B. and Molin, M. (2003)
op.cit. p.18.
170. YASCI (2002) op.cit. p.26.
171. Rolfe, H. and Crowley, T. (2008) op.cit.
p.18.
172. See www.yse.org.uk
173. See www.whatifinnovation.com
174. See www.unltd.org.uk
175. Camino, L.A. (2000) op.cit p.23.
176. Op. cit. p.17.
Turner shows how the ideology of an important segment of the counterculture drew
heavily on the ideas of information theory, cybernetics, and general systems theory to
justify rejecting bureaucracy and hierarchical authority while retaining faith in technology
and horizontally organised networks of experts.
Social links are increasingly facilitated in online spaces. For example, in gaming communities,
social spaces are set up by companies exploiting the innovative tendencies of users. The joy
of innovating and recognition from peers are also motivating factors for user-innovators.169
Policymakers might think of ways to facilitate these social networks and identify how these
spaces can be made available where access to the internet and new technologies might be
weaker, for example in poorer households.
Role models provide major sources of support
Role models emerge from the literature170 and the focus groups as key factors in facilitating
youth-led innovation. Rolfe and Crowley171 note that parents were a major source of
information and can act as role models for work placements, but that this could be much
further developed. The Commission for Youth Social Enterprise (CYSE)172 was created by
21 of Britain’s top young social entrepreneurs and launched with support from the Cabinet
Office, the ?WHAT IF! innovation company173 and UnLtd – The Foundation for Social
Entrepreneurs.174 The Commission provides support to help 18-28 year olds to get their
business plans off the ground. The Commission aims to work with third sector bodies to
remove obstacles impeding aspiring social entrepreneurs; its young entrepreneurs have
already launched successful businesses in areas including IT and the arts and they act as
role models for other young people.
Support and trust of others is crucial
Adult support for the innovator or innovating group, particularly from parents and teachers,
is often critical for an innovation to develop and be adopted. This support needs to
demonstrate trust in the innovator, with a willingness to take risks, and is more effective
if it includes constructive feedback. Camino175 noted how a young person described his
idea for building community bus shelters as a means to improve conditions for residents.
Initially, at several meetings, adults ignored him. It took the public backing of a youth
development specialist group for his idea to gain ground. Our focus groups saw the positive
experience of successful innovation as a major facilitator, while conversely negative effects
occurred from bad experiences. Many of the organisations that attended the focus groups
provide support through mentoring services, including one-to-one discussions about aims,
planning, contacts and outcomes, to young people engaged in innovative activities.
Support within organisations sometimes comes from a ‘champion’. This may be a
manufacturer of computer games providing chat rooms and toolkits. More likely, it will
come from online or face-to-face peer groups.176 Some firms now facilitate environments
for young users to interact and support each other, though many other communities emerge
spontaneously. Canada’s Youth Action Council on Sustainable Innovation (YACSI) report177
noted the importance of this in sustaining longer-term innovation. YACSI also noted the
importance of financial and other support.

26 27
Youth-led innovation Enhancing the skills and capacity of the next generation of innovators
177. YASCI (2002) op.cit. p.26.
178. Jeppesen, L.B. and Molin, M. (2003)
op.cit. p.18.
179. Although it could possibly be a by-
product.
180. YASCI (2002) op.cit. p.26.
181. Sebba, J. et al. (2007) op.cit. p.19.
182. YASCI (2002) op.cit. p.26.
183. Shah, S. (2000) op.cit. p.17.
Flexible space, time and opportunities enable youth-led innovation to develop
Spaces for innovation mean not only physical spaces, but also the time and opportunity
to innovate. Physical space might be adult-initiated or instigated or encouraged by young
people themselves. Such space may be tangible, as in a youth centre, or virtual, as with
gaming communities.178 What seems important to innovation in these spaces is that they
are enabling environments and that any adults present do not seek to control or inhibit the
ideas and actions of young people. Some spaces, like school councils, often by their very
nature, do not encourage innovation179 because of the required conformity to adult social
norms.
Innovation is often encouraged through flexible approaches by facilitators guiding the
space. For example, the YACSI report noted that unconventional teachers, greater use of
imagination in early grades, programmes targeting pupils identified as gifted, workshops
allowing different means of learning, interactive classes, learning without teachers, children
as teachers, open-ended assignments and problem-based learning, were all examples of
flexibility in schools which seemed to support youth-led innovation.180 In our previous
research, we observed that some of these practices, and their impact upon personalised
learning and student leadership, were more frequent in primary than in secondary schools,
owing to the constraints imposed by the secondary school curriculum, assessment and
timetabling.181
The literature points to innovation often being a lengthy process, so giving young people the
time to process the innovation is important.182 Shah’s study of skateboarding, snowboarding
and windsurfing innovators found that those users who were there in the initial stages of
the sport’s development were the most innovative.183 As the sport became more popular,
many of the necessary innovations had been made.

28
Youth-led innovation Enhancing the skills and capacity of the next generation of innovators
29
184. YASCI (2002) op.cit. p.26.
185. Barber, T. (2007) op.cit. p.23.
186. Camino, L.A. (2000) op.cit. p.23.
187. Druin, A. and Fast, C. (2002) op.cit. p.19
188. von Hippel, E. (1988) ‘The Sources of
Innovation.’ Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Negative attitudes towards young people can limit their confidence
A number of barriers emerge from the literature. The concept of ‘youth’ is often referred to
negatively in the media, the community and sometimes in schools.184 In addition, the use of
language can exacerbate this negativity – the term ‘kids’, for example, is not seen by young
people themselves as conveying respect. Barber commented:
The so-called youth problem is in many cases an adult problem; a failure of adults
to understand the world in which young people function. A nation’s youth are usually
at the vanguard of social change and the shifting trends in society; this makes them
particularly susceptible to criticism.185
Camino noted how adults can overcome negative attitudes to young people if they work with
them on community concerns.186 This suggests that attitudes need to form a critical element
in a framework of youth-led innovation. Moreover, future strategies and programmes to
promote youth-led innovation will need a strong communication plan that celebrates its
social, economic and cultural benefits to the whole community.
Power relationships with adults can inhibit young people from taking the lead
Many of the studies we identified focus on initiatives that are initially adult-led and that
sometimes maintain adult control even when espousing youth leadership. Genuinely youth-
led initiatives are less likely to be formally evaluated or identified in literature reviews.
However, the literature suggests that the ‘letting go’ or ‘handing over’ of resources and
decision-making requires sensitive handling of the power relationships. Moreover, young
people’s perceptions of authority may also need to be challenged. Druin and Fast noted
that children’s perceptions of the teacher or parent as an authority figure can be a barrier
to ‘co-creation’ and ‘co-design’ as they wait for the adult to set the parameters rather than
initiating ideas themselves.187
Familiarity can impede innovation
The theoretical perspective of von Hippel on sources of innovation, argues that familiarity
with existing product attributes and uses interferes with an individual’s ability to conceive of
novel possibilities.188 Thus, their real world experiences constrain their capacity to innovate.
Rappa and Debackere’s review of the literature on the links between age and innovation in
scientific research suggests that, once an important innovation is made and a new field is
opened up to investigation, younger scientists are more likely to be drawn into it than older
5. There are some strong
barriers to youth-led
innovation

28
29
Youth-led innovation Enhancing the skills and capacity of the next generation of innovators
189. Rappa, M. and Debackere, K. (1993)
Youth and scientific innovation: the role
of young scientists in the develop-
ment of a new field. ‘Minerva.’ 31 (1),
pp.1-20.
190. von Hippel, E. (1988) op.cit. p.29.
191. YASCI (2002) op.cit. p.26.
192. Druin, A. and Fast, C. (2002) op.cit.
p.19.
193. Vygotsky, L.S. (1962) ‘Thought & Lan-
guage.’ Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
194. Druin, A. (2002) op.cit. p.19.
195. Druin, A. and Fast, C. (2002) op.cit. p.19
196. Matthews, H. (2001) op.cit. p.155.
197. Barber, T. (2007) op.cit. p.23.
198. Matthews, H. (2001) op.cit. p.16.
199. Matthews, H. and Limb, M. (2003)
Another white elephant? Youth councils
as democratic structures. ‘Space and
Polity.’ 7, pp.173-192.
200. Ibid.
201. YASCI (2002) op.cit. p.26.
202. Ibid.
203. Peel, M. (2006) Jam-maker hits at
government recipe for young entre-
preneurs. ‘Financial Times.’ 13 May
2006. Available at: http://www.ft.com/
cms/s/0/4b932642-e21d-11da-bf4c-
0000779e2340.html?nclickcheck=1
[Accessed on 9 December 2008].
ones.189 In support of von Hippel, they argue that the resistance reported in older, more
established scientists relates to their familiarity with the arguments in their field of focus.190
For young people, initiatives that expose them to the new and unfamiliar may stimulate
innovation. This is supported by the finding in the YACSI report, that new experiences,
such as new endeavours, meeting new people or travelling to new places could all facilitate
youth-led innovation as they provide the stimulus of the unknown.191 For younger children,
for whom many experiences of everyday life are encounters with the unknown, Druin and
Fast192 suggest that stimulating them to innovate works best by starting with something
close to their ‘zone of proximal development’.193 In their research194,195 they got children to
‘invent new sandwiches’ before moving on to less familiar territory. This might suggest the
need for a developmental aspect to the framework for youth-led innovation, but individual
differences in development and the fact that young children can develop innovative ideas,
would preclude rigidly linking age to innovative capability.
Structures aimed at increasing innovation may act as barriers
Some writers have noted that the structures set up to promote participation and innovation,
such as school councils and the Youth Parliament, are sometimes ineffective and ‘perpetuate
the disenfranchisement of youth’.196 Councils designed for young people often replicate
adult councils, suggesting adult behaviour that does not accept young people as they are,
but wants them to mimic adults which Barber refers to as ‘adultising’.197 Concerns include
their exclusivity, accountability, tokenism, partiality and sustainability. Matthews notes that
the young people involved often do not represent the diversity of people in the community
and can thus disempower others.198 Matthews and Limb note that young people are not
politically apathetic, but sceptical of ‘tokenism and rhetoric’ that come with these new
forms of ‘participation’.199 They comment:
New evidence suggests …that many youth forums are flawed and inappropriate
participatory devices, often obfuscating the voices of those whom they are meant to
empower.200
The YACSI report identified a broad range of factors that influence youth-led innovation,
including those falling outside the formal education curriculum.201 The majority of
respondents in the YACSI survey characterised the educational system as a suppressor of
innovation.202 They suggested that teachers are sometimes too helpful, stifling students’
ability to think for themselves. New ideas are often ridiculed or ignored and many creative
thinkers are persuaded by the educational system to maintain the status quo. Most of the
respondents, who themselves were successful innovators, displayed a weak attachment to
the educational system.
There can be legal and financial constraints and lack of support
Structural barriers such as legal age restrictions on banking, setting up companies and
applying for patents, act as barriers for youth-led innovation. Peel gives an account of
the debate about a provision in the Companies Act 2006 that prevents people under 16
from becoming company directors.203 The legislation was justified at the time by the need
to stop fraud where parents made their children directors of companies in order to protect
themselves from legal action. In January 2006, according to official figures reported by Peel,
there were 432 directors under 16, less than half of whom were under 10. Peel suggests that
this legislation could be seen as a barrier to the government’s much-publicised commitment
to school-age entrepreneurship.

30
Youth-led innovation Enhancing the skills and capacity of the next generation of innovators
31
204. Karlin, S. (2004) op.cit. p.26.
205. YASCI (2002) op.cit. p.26.
206. Peel, M. (2006) op.cit. p.30.
207. McKay, S. et al. (2005) op.cit. p.187.
208. Hunt, F. (2007) ‘Communications in
Education.’ Centre for International Edu-
cation, University of Sussex. Available
at: http://www.dcern.org/portal/docu-
ments/EducationSummaryPaper_001.
pdf [Accessed on 13 February 2009].
209. National Statistics online. Available
at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/
nugget.asp?ID=8) [Accessed on 20
December 2008].
210. BECTA Home Access Website. http://
becta.org.uk/homeaccess [Accessed on
20 December 2008].
Karlin reported structural barriers to innovation in an account of a student who invented a
flexible computer keyboard. Frustrated by lack of patent guidance, she organised a network
of like-minded collegians to help her work out how to proceed. The network developed into
Young Inventors International.204
We have noted the importance of social, practical, emotional or financial support in
facilitating youth-led innovation. Lack of such support emerges from the literature
as a barrier to the development of innovation, and focus group participants frequently
mentioned both positive support and lack of it in their accounts of experiences.205 Peel
noted that 17 year old Fraser Doherty sells jam from his grandmother’s recipe, earning
up to £7,500 a month. In 2004, he was presented with an Enterprising Young Brit award
by Gordon Brown. However, Doherty thinks the government is more interested in the ‘PR
game’ than in offering help to people like him:
Whenever I have gone to government agencies for help, they haven’t given any. If I was
over 18, there would be all kinds of grants and a lot more in terms of training courses,
facilities and cheap office space.206
Doherty says that the government should concentrate less on giving high-profile awards to
young business people and more on offering them practical assistance.
Technology is insufficiently accessible to all
Limited access to digital technologies can make innovation and diffusion harder. Such
technologies provide access to databases, online spaces where potential innovators come
together and information needed to develop new ideas. McKay et al. note that access
to digital technologies is “still the privilege of only a very small number of young people
worldwide”.207 Hunt describes inequalities in access to new technologies in developing
countries, where radio is still the most widely used means of communication and therefore
the most inclusive.208 The rural poor are least likely to have access to technology. Frequent
low literacy levels, where technologies rely on participants being literate to use many of
their functions, further compound the problem.
Geography was noted by focus group participants to be a factor in access to innovation and
use of technology to innovate. In the UK, 16 million households (65 per cent) had access to
the internet in 2008. Households in the South East (74 per cent) were most likely to have
internet access with those in the North East least likely (54 per cent).209 1.4 million school-
going young people have no access to the internet at home and over one million learners
have no access to a computer at home.210

30
31
Youth-led innovation Enhancing the skills and capacity of the next generation of innovators
211. Barnes, M., Knops, A., Newman, J. and
Sullivan, H. (2004) Public participation
and collaborative governance. ‘Journal of
Social Policy.’ 33, pp.203-223.
212. Flowers, S. (2008b) op.cit. p.15.
213. Druin, A. (2002) op.cit. p.19.
214. Druin, A. and Fast, C. (2002) op.cit.
p.19.
215. Camino, L.A. (2000) op.cit. p.23.
216. Mitra, D. (2004) The Significance of Stu-
dents: Can Increasing “Student Voice” in
Schools Lead to Gains in Youth Develop-
ment? ‘Teachers College Record.’ 106
(4), pp.651-688.
217. Camino, L.A. (2000) op.cit. p.23.
218. Cunningham, H. (1998) op.cit. p.24.
219. Markoff J. (2005) op.cit. p.24.
There is plenty of youth innovation going on, but formal evaluation of its impact is lacking.
Most literature on innovation, including the theoretical literature, does not relate specifically
to young people (e.g. Barnes et al.’s research on deliberative forums designed to increase
active citizenship,211 Flowers’ paper on ‘outlaw users’212). Equally, most of the extensive
literature on youth participation and engagement does not address innovation. Terminology
in this area, for example ‘inventors’, ‘innovators’ and ‘entrepreneurs’ is diverse, confused
and used inconsistently.
More robust evidence of impact is needed
While there is evidence of impact, much of the literature is descriptive and aspirational, rather
than providing clear evidence of outcomes. Much of it is discursive rather than empirical
and that which offers an evidence base tends to be small scale and focused on local or
short-term initiatives without robust measures of impact. Rather, some of it describes ad
hoc or informal activities; and even then, many such activities may not be picked up in the
literature at all.
Examples were found of a range of benefits
Examples of evidence included children’s self-reported journals213,214 in which they recorded
their developments as ‘innovators’, documentary analysis, focus groups, interviews and
observation.215 Mitra provides one of the few longitudinal perspectives through data
collected over two years in one high school in which student voice was being developed,
and found a marked consistency in the growth of agency, belonging and competence.216
It is possible that the more young people initiate an innovation, the more social, economic
or emotional benefits might be gained. For example, in Camino’s study where young
people were active initiators, there were benefits in terms of youth development and
adults overcoming negative attitudes to youth with whom they had worked on community
concerns.217
In her study of innovation in the context of club culture, Cunningham concludes that even
where young people are using new technology and producing cultural goods underground
for their own use, this provides economic as well as cultural value.218 Markoff noted the
impact of 1960s hippie culture on inventions and further adaptations in the development
of personal computers and the internet.219
6. Youth-led innovation can
have benefits – but better
identification of these is
needed

32
Youth-led innovation Enhancing the skills and capacity of the next generation of innovators
33
220. Jeppesen, L.B. and Molin, M. (2003)
op.cit. p.18.
221. Ibid.
222. Heath, A. and Potter, J. (2004) op.cit.
p.14.
223. Druin, A. and Fast, C. (2002) op.cit.
p.19.
224. Ibid. p.208.
225. Jeppesen, L.B. and Molin, M. (2003)
op.cit. p.18.
226. Mitra, D. (2004) op.cit. p.32.
227. Fielding, M. and Bragg, S. (2003)
’Students as Researchers: Making a Dif-
ference.’ London: Pearson Publishing.
228. Fielding, M. (2004) “New Wave”
Student Voice and the Renewal of Civic
Society. ‘London Review of Education.’
2, pp.197-217.
229. Bragg, S. (2007b) “Student Voice” and
Governmentality: The production of
enterprising subjects? ‘Discourse.’ 28,
pp.343-358.
Jeppesen and Molin’s study of innovation in the online gaming communities noted economic
benefit going to companies who can manipulate consumer innovation into product design.220
They give the example of Minh Lee, who as a student developed Half-Life: Counter-Strike
that had an existing game (Half-life) as its engine. Lee’s innovation was a huge success,
providing economic benefit to the makers of Half-Life whose product was needed to play
Half-Life: Counter-Strike.221 Further examples are given in Heath and Potter.222
Early innovation experiences can develop the capacity of young people for
innovation
Druin and Fast identified a process through which children developed from ‘learners’
(absorbing, understanding and making sense of the process of invention; learning what
inventors do to solve problems) to ‘critics’ (recognising what is good and bad in inventions
around them) or ‘inventors’ (suggesting new ideas to be invented), though less often
becoming co-designers (working with others in the invention process).223 In the first year of
self-recording their development in journals, only evidence of ‘learners’ was identified, but
over a three year period, 20 of the 27 children recorded changed ‘identities’ from learners
to critics or inventors. The authors commented:
... it was encouraging to see that children can move from learning about the process of
invention to actually contributing to the invention experience.224
However, our review focuses on innovation rather than invention, requiring not just the
suggestion of new ideas but the adoption and implementation of them.
Jeppesen and Molin describe how online computer gaming communities adapt and innovate
around products.225 Here they see learning between users in what they call ‘interactive
consumer learning processes’, where innovation is driven by the social interaction around
the existing product and the adaptations that are being made between community members.
Learning communities of this kind develop practices that help consumers communicate about
their problems (including language, behavioural codes, etiquette and norms). Learning can
be lower-level, that is structured by the design limits set by the company; or higher-level
where the limits set by the design firm are contested and innovation can become more
radical, leading to new products. Consumers might come to the community for advice on
how to deal with problems in the game; test out and ask for advice on innovations; and test
the limits of the product. Learning (and thus innovation) takes place independently of the
firm, but feeds back into the organisation.
Much of the literature reviewed focused on adult-initiated activity designed to increase
young people’s engagement, influence and possible subsequent innovation. In this sense,
some of these initiatives may be building capacity in young people, and the institutions and
environments in which they live, to innovate in the future. The lack of longitudinal data
limits this to supposition, though in one of the only longitudinal studies reviewed, Mitra
concluded that student voice can create meaningful experiences for young people that help
meet fundamental development needs and create capacity for future action.226 The research
on students-as-researchers227 could be seen as contributing to this capacity building, since
it is designed to move schools and students on from what might be described as ‘students
as data sources’ to ‘students as knowledge creators’.228
However, Bragg argues that while students do grow in self confidence, independence and
communication skills as a result of being trained in research skills and given responsibility
and leadership in schools, there is a dominance of middle class and corporate discourses in
some schools which marginalise non-participants.229 Similarly, Schafer and Yarwood noted
that 14-16 year olds trained to interview other young people led to them creating hierarchies

32 33
Youth-led innovation Enhancing the skills and capacity of the next generation of innovators
230. Schafer, N. and Yarwood, R. (2008)
Involving young people as researchers:
Uncovering multiple power relations
among youths. ‘Children’s Geographies.’
6 (2), pp.121-135.
231. Mitra, D. (2004) op.cit. p.32.
232. YASCI (2002) op.cit p.26.
233. Druin. A. and Fast, C. (2002) op.cit p.19.
234. Flowers, S. (2008b) op.cit. p.15.
among themselves,230 although Mitra targeted low socio-economic groups and those for
whom English was a second language, in her work on student voice.231 These reservations
almost certainly apply equally to many of the other youth-led activities reviewed, which
suggests the need to address inclusivity in the proposed framework, forward strategy and
programme.
The YACSI research, in studying how innovation can be made more sustainable among young
people in Canada, using focus groups with 241 ‘of the most innovative youth’, concluded
that young children can be taught the skills to innovate.232 This is supported by the Druin
and Fast research reported above.233
Policymakers, educators and youth organisations can support and encourage
young people’s innovation, but much will remain outside institutions and
adult influence
Often, innovation is not a managed process: it may be about young people experimenting in
eCommunication or establishing their authority through activism. Many of these examples
challenge the core structures and processes that are set up supposedly to promote greater
participation and thereby encourage innovation, such as school councils or the UK Youth
Parliament, which can contain and control young people, inhibiting further innovation.
Innovation is also unpredictable. The main or most important outcomes of innovation
may not relate to the original intention. Many innovations have ‘spillovers’ that become
more innovative or more widely adopted than the original idea. Furthermore, the literature
suggests that processes such as eCommunication can lead to important innovations that are
not always recognised as such.
There is evidence that adverse conditions such as poverty, exclusion or failure may motivate
innovation in some individuals and groups. Acknowledging the role of rebellion and anti-
authority culture in innovation implies encouraging its further development, but any
recognition of it, or attempts to stimulate it, runs the risk of destroying it.234 This dilemma
must be recognised by those seeking to promote innovation.

34
Youth-led innovation Enhancing the skills and capacity of the next generation of innovators
35
235. Cabinet Office (2009) ‘New Opportuni-
ties: Fair Chances for the Future.’ Cm
7533. London: The Stationery Office.
Available at: www.hmg.gov.uk/ne-
wopportunities.aspx [Accessed on 13
February 2009].
236. von Hippel, E. (2001) Perspective:
user toolkits for innovation. ‘Journal of
Product Innovation Management.’ 18,
pp.247-257.
237. Jeppesen, L.B. and Molin, M. (2003)
op.cit. p.18.
238. Hendry, E. (2008) ‘Developing in-
novative people through the education
system.’ London: NESTA.
7. The research identified
directions for future
programmes
There is strong interest in promoting youth-led innovation. The United Nations Convention
on the Rights of the Child provides the context in which young people can expect to exercise
their rights to public services and citizenship. The recent White Paper New Opportunities:
Fair Chances for the Future235 proposes a strategic approach to encouraging innovation and
enterprise, including targeted funding in 15 areas for young social entrepreneurs and for
intergenerational volunteering and local innovation.
While evidence of the impact of youth-led innovation was limited, clear messages emerged
about what supported and inhibited its development. In this context, we make a number
of suggestions for future development. These draw on the insights of our focus groups of
young innovators and those organisations that support them, who counselled us strongly
against producing a single ‘recipe’ for innovation.
Develop Toolkits aimed at young people
A Toolkit is an innovation process in which the user controls the development within a given
environment designed to support them. It provides the process or structure to support
people to innovate within a domain (e.g. a product, service or political, civic or cultural
activity). Toolkits contain tacit or implicit knowledge that support users in achieving their
aims or to participate in a process. Von Hippel suggests that Toolkits should meet the criteria
of enabling the user to learn by trial and error, provide flexible scope for solutions, be user
friendly, provide access to a ‘library’ of standard modules and enable results to be easily
created.236 They could be developed specifically for young people using well-structured
websites or involve the development of a website as a Toolkit.
The proposal by Jeppesen and Molin that organisations might put out ‘half-finished’
products, which consumers work to finalise is similar to the ideas inherent in Toolkits.237
The Toolkits enable consumers to customise the product to their needs so they become
environments within which users create their own stories or versions. A good example is the
interactive Second Life, where the firm creates the virtual environment and the users create
the action. Social networking sites are similar: firms provide the structure and users provide
virtually all the content. Equally, the Toolkits described above enable users to develop their
own games. This principle could be extended in the context of technological developments
but also applied more widely to the design of public services including for example, the
school curriculum, use of space in residential homes and in health services.
This would build on NESTA’s previous work. Hendry’s proposal for user-led information,
advice and guidance for younger age groups238 provides a possible basis for this, though
unlike Toolkits, does not explicitly imply ongoing opportunities for further development and
customisation. Rolfe and Crowley recommended that for work-related learning and career

34 35
Youth-led innovation Enhancing the skills and capacity of the next generation of innovators
239. Rolfe, H. and Crowley, T. (2008) op.cit.
p.18.
240. See www.linkedin.com
241. Sebba, J. et al., (2007) op.cit. p.19.
guidance websites, website designers should involve young people to better reflect their
needs and internet use,239 something which this Toolkit proposal could progress.
Many of the organisations that were in contact with the research team during the project
have developed components of toolkits, but there is scope for further development. We
need an audit of currently available Toolkits to identify unmet needs. New toolkits could
then be properly targeted with young innovators extensively involved in their development.
The Toolkits can be revised, extended or rebuilt by the community within which they were
developed.
Target the development or extension for young people of existing social and
business networks
Such targeting could aim to close the innovation gap by encouraging social mobility. It is
clear from the literature reviewed in this report that young people from a very wide range
of backgrounds access social networking sites. The access of young people to business sites
is likely to be much more limited and could be developed to provide support for youth-
led innovation. This might be done through partnering between existing organisations
that run business or professional networks, such as LinkedIn, a social networking site for
professionals.240 These networks could support innovation in any of the three domains
identified in this report.
Develop youth-led innovation through the media
A strongly emerging finding from both the literature and the focus groups was that negative
attitudes towards young people are a major barrier to innovation and that this is exacerbated
in the media. Both the language used to refer to young people and the tone of the coverage
given them in the media needs to be addressed. There are three ways in which the media
could contribute to promoting youth-led innovation:
• Involving young people in the development and production of television and radio
programmes, ensuring that these are genuinely youth-led and not subjected to
continuous adult direction and editing.
• Schools and youth groups developing their own radio and television stations (see
examples in the research on personalised learning in schools241) as a vehicle for youth
innovation, both through communicating their ideas more widely and through running
the process themselves.
• Using the media to celebrate the ways in which young people make a positive
contribution, with examples of youth-led innovation in the development of products
and services for helping others, creation of new technologies, improvements to civic
society, and initiatives in art or music.
Develop a culture that supports youth-led innovation
The proposed programme developments need to go alongside a wider agenda aimed at
influencing policy and practice as part of the longer term process of creating a culture that
is more conducive to youth-led innovation. Embedding a culture of youth-led innovation
seems to require both support and flexibility. Support can be emotional, through mentors

36
Youth-led innovation Enhancing the skills and capacity of the next generation of innovators
37
242. YACSI (2002) op.cit. p.26.
243. The Integrated Qualifications Framework
(IQF) can be found at: www.iqf.org.uk
244. Percy-Smith, B. (1998) Children’s
Participation in Local Decision-Making:
The Challenge of Local Governance. In
Johnson, V., Ivan-Smith, G., Gordon,
P., Pridmore, P. and Scott, P. (eds.)
‘Stepping forward: children and young
people’s participation in the develop-
ment process.’ London: Intermediate
Technology Publications, Ltd.
245. See www.dcsf.gov.uk/childrensplan
246. Rappa, M. and Debackere, K. (1993)
op.cit. p.30.
247. Druin, A. and Fast, C. (2002) op. cit.
p.19.
248. YACSI (2002) op.cit. p.26.
249. Adey, P. and Shayer, M. (1994) ‘Really
Raising Standards.’ London: Routledge.
250. Hendry, E. (2008) op.cit. p.35.
251. Rolfe, H. and Crowley, T. (2008) op.cit.
p.18.
or families. It can be social, perhaps through the networks or internet groups identified in
the eCommunication research. Or it could be financial, such as increasing the number and
quality of youth start-up businesses.242 We make some specific recommendations for policy-
makers and organisations promoting youth innovation.
• Provide more staff development for adults working with children and young
people on ways of promoting youth innovation
This will mean influencing the development of the Integrated Qualifications Framework243
in ways that support youth innovation. Approaches to promoting youth innovation need
to be incorporated into both the initial training and the ongoing staff development of
the teaching and child care professions working with young people. For example, Percy-
Smith highlights the training and capacity building of development workers in order to
involve children and create greater ‘space’ for innovation.244 Furthermore, in the light
of the Children’s Plan requirements to consult young people about the services they
receive, this training should include a focus on ‘student voice’.245
• Develop capability for youth-led innovation
Rappa and Debackere’s review of the role of young scientists in innovation suggested
that opportunities to innovate independently from adults should be developed early.246
Furthermore, this and other evidence acknowledged that very young children can lead
innovation, provided their capability is nurtured.247,248 This includes skills training as well
as the problem solving, open-thinking and teamwork that underlies so much effective
innovation. There is evidence from the literature that this receives insufficient attention
and some evidence of specific barriers in schools to this, such as attitudes to new ideas.
The research on thinking skills249 provides exemplars of how this can be addressed
effectively. As Hendry suggests, this should be promoted through existing curricular
developments, such as the Primary Review and the National Strategies, rather than by a
separate ‘innovation curriculum’.250
• Review the structures intended to support the development of youth-led
innovation
Rather than promoting youth-led innovation through participation as intended, some
school councils, regional youth parliaments and other similar structures, can inhibit
genuine innovation by diverting energy into procedural activities and marginalising the
majority of young people who are not directly involved. There should at least be a major
review of the purposes and development of these structures, and consideration should
be given to favouring approaches that embed a culture of innovation more inclusively.
Where structures are created, they should be a response to demand from young people
themselves.
The organisations that campaign on behalf of young people are wide-ranging, fragmented
and not clearly identifiable. They should be encouraged to work together; for example
on issues such as legal barriers that hinder young people from commercialising their
innovations.
• Create opportunities in and out of school
Our literature review has shown a need for cultures in which innovation can flourish.
Young people need the space to innovate. This includes online and physical spaces.
It also means emotional support, the chance to discuss ideas with their peers, time to
innovate and access to adults. Role models and mentors are also important. And young
people need the flexibility to allow innovation to occur without excessive controls or
restrictions. All those who want it should have access to technology and information
that will support their innovation. Rolfe and Crowley’s suggestion for spreading good
practice through the Schools’ Enterprise Education Network provides one approach
to this.251 Some of the organisations supporting youth-innovation who participated in
the workshops described effective approaches. Bringing young innovators together,

36
37
Youth-led innovation Enhancing the skills and capacity of the next generation of innovators
in particular with those who have overcome the barriers, seems to be helpful. It is
particularly important to create space for innovation within current structures such as
the school curriculum, youth groups and work experience.
• Recognise, celebrate and reward organisational support for youth-led innovation
through existing schemes
Practices identified as particularly effective are recognised through programmes such as
specialist schools, extended schools and eco-schools, where good practice is ‘badged’.
The Specialist Schools and Academies Trust is already actively promoting student voice.
But within these and other schemes, greater priority could be given to supporting
youth-led innovation. This requires discussion with policymakers and schools that might
be interested in developing these routes to recognising their work in supporting young
innovators.
Future programmes need to build an evidence base of ‘what works’
A number of ideas for future programmes and research directions emerged from the project.
However, in order to build on the evidence base, maximise coherence and deploy resources
effectively, the first priority would be to pilot and evaluate work on one or more of the
proposals above.
Towards a framework of youth-led innovation
Drawing on the findings from the literature, Figure 2 shows the many ways in which youth-
led innovation appears to develop and some of the facilitators and barriers. At the base
of the diagram are a number of drivers of innovation which may lead to ideas that are
generated through student activism (in the civic/political domain), social networking or
eCommunication by individuals or groups (in the cultural/subcultural domain) or product
development (in the commercial and public services domain). If an individual or group takes
this innovation forward (into the centre), it may then be developed and have influence or
impact socially, economically, culturally, technologically or politically (top of diagram) with
potential wider social benefits.
Innovation can have unintended spin offs, both positive and negative, and can both create
capacity for further innovation, perhaps through increasing the confidence or contacts that
a young person has established, or lead to new constraints such as restrictions to internet
access.
The facilitators and barriers that might operate in this process are outlined on either side
of the framework, acknowledging that some barriers are simply the converse of a matched
facilitator (e.g. financial support/lack of financial support) and other barriers (e.g. pressure
to conform) may sometimes become a facilitator (e.g. through being a driver for political
activism).

38
Youth-led innovation Enhancing the skills and capacity of the next generation of innovators
39
Figure 2: Towards a framework for youth-led innovation
Drivers
Commercial
Benefit to wider society – solving
a problem/making a difference
Tackling adversity
Creative expression
Address boredom
Search for identity
Need to communicate
Facilitators
Mentors/Role Models
Enabling/’Safe’ Spaces
Social Capital/Networks
Information/Resources
Rights/Legal Structures
Benefits to Individual/Community/Society
Towards a framework for youth-led innovation
Individual/Group
Youth-led
Innovation
Social | Economic | Cultural | Technological | Political
Capacity for
further innovation
Spin Offs
Spin Offs
Innovative activity
leads to new
constraints
Barriers
Adult Attitudes
Pressure to Conform
Previous negative
experience
Recent Familiarity
Regulation/Legal
Structures/Policy
Lack of capacity
e.g. cost/skills
C
i
v
i
c
/
P
o
l
i
t
i
c
a
l
C
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
/
S
u
b
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
/

38 39
Youth-led innovation Enhancing the skills and capacity of the next generation of innovators
The objectives of the research given in our proposal to NESTA were as follows:
• reviewing the literature on youth-led innovation and identifying evidence of its impact
in terms of social, cultural, economic, technological and political benefits;
• providing evidence if available, that involvement in innovation increases the propensity
and capacity of young people to innovate;
• providing evidence of the barriers and facilitators to youth-led innovation;
• developing a ‘typology’ or ‘framework’ for youth innovation which provides explanatory
value in terms of the contexts, motivations of organisations and young people, and
types of innovation;
• making recommendations to NESTA and public policy/programme makers on possible
future strategies/programmes to promote youth-led innovation.
Electronic searches were undertaken on 23 databases using a wide range of search terms (see
below for a list of databases and search terms used). This process provided 513 references
which were recorded in an EndNote database. The titles and abstracts of these were then
screened for relevance and other criteria for inclusion as follows:
• process, product and service-related innovations;
• examples of innovations in different areas, e.g. music, art, IT, language;
• subcultural and countercultural movements;
• examples of different spaces used for innovation, e.g. school councils, youth parliament;
• factors which encouraged/discouraged innovation;
• overarching texts/theoretical works;
• changes being made as a result of youth involvement/decision-making;
• empowering youth – this generally was in the form of small scale projects;
• youth being involved, rather than just participating, in processes, e.g. key player in a
research project;
Appendix: About our review
of the literature

40
Youth-led innovation Enhancing the skills and capacity of the next generation of innovators
41
• youth working as partners with adults, rather than just participating, in developing
thinking/implementing innovation. This included youth in design processes;
• youth participating in policymaking/as change agents;
• innovation as exploration of identity;
• research relating to organisations renowned for supporting youth enterprise;
• research about factors necessary for/influencing youth innovation/enterprises;
• research relating to social theory around youth innovation;
• literature reviews on youth leadership;
• research on involving hard-to-reach youth.
This gave us a list of around 65 references which were then obtained or ordered for reviewing.
The publications were read and notes made on a proforma that addressed the elements of
the study and the methodology, main findings and references to other relevant work.
Databases searched for the literature review
ABI/INFORM Global
BHI (British Humanities Index)
Business Source Premier
British Education Index (also covers Australian Education Index and Educational
Resources Information Center – ERIC)
Eldis
Google
Google Scholar
ILO
Informaworld
IngentaConnect
International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)
JSTOR
OCLC FirstSearch
PsycARTICLES
PsycINFO
Sage Journals online
Scopus
SourceOECD
Springer Publisher database
Wiley Interscience
Zetoc

40 41
Youth-led innovation Enhancing the skills and capacity of the next generation of innovators
Search terms
Youth
Young
Children
Students
Pupils
Learners
Age Verb/noun Sector/area
innovation
development
entrepreneurship
youth-adult partnerships
activism
leadership
governance
influence
participation
engagement
alliance
civic actors
change agents
design
create
user-centred innovation
learners as creators
enterprise
voice
invention
improvement
progress
directed
decision makers
service-learning
social innovation
* user-centred with all above
* user- ... and all above
Mobile phones
Music (rap, hip hop, grunge,
drum and bass etc.)
Graffiti/street art
Language/slang
Fashion
Playground games
Crime
Texting/new literacies
Youth parliament
Youth forum
Youth/school council
Sports
Business
Gifted and talented
Church
Youth groups
Social movements

2. Title of section
44
Youth-led innovation Enhancing the skills and capacity of the next generation of innovators
NESTA
1 Plough Place
London EC4A 1DE
research@nesta.org.uk
www.nesta.org.uk
Published: July 2009
YLI/20