¿Soluciones para adolescentes? Con adolescentes | Sandra Sanmartín Feijoo
Solutions for teenagers? With teenagers | Sandra Sanmartín Feijoo
Keywords
Summary
153 words
Critical Evaluation
Value of the Information & Strength of the Argument
The talk provides a fresh and valuable perspective by foregrounding the voices of adolescents in a field dominated by adult assumptions. The argument is persuasive: prevention programs that ignore the target population’s actual experiences and needs are likely to fail. The speaker supports her claims with real examples from her own research, such as the underestimated importance of influencers and the finding that teens perceive adults (parents, teachers) as a privacy threat. The argumentation is coherent with a clear logical thread from problem to methodology to implications. However, the reliance on anecdotal evidence and the absence of quantitative data or references to existing literature limit the overall robustness. Despite this, the talk successfully communicates the necessity of participatory approaches and invites critical reflection on current practices.
Scientific Rigor, Source Quality, Title Accuracy
The speaker, a researcher from the University of Burgos, demonstrates professional credibility but does not cite specific academic sources during the talk. The only provided external link is the institutional blog of UBU Investiga, which offers general science communication content. There is no mention of peer-reviewed studies or data to substantiate the claims, making the scientific rigor moderate. The title accurately reflects the content: it questions whether solutions are developed ‘for’ teenagers without their involvement, and argues for ‘with’ them. This match is adequate, and the title effectively conveys the core message. The talk is delivered in a clear and engaging manner, typical of a science outreach event like Pint of Science.
253 words
Title / Content Match
Accurate: the title poses a critical question about solutions for adolescents, and the talk argues that solutions must be co-developed with them rather than imposed by adults.
Quality & Reliability
6/10
The talk is based on the researcher's own qualitative experience and anecdotal evidence, with no formal citations or peer-reviewed data. It provides valuable insights but lacks systematic rigor and verifiability.
Key Moments
Markers derived by PSI from the transcript: the creator did not define chapters.
- Speaker asks audience about their concerns regarding adolescents, internet and AI.
- Introduction of the concept of co-design (PPI - Patient and Public Involvement) and the idea that people are experts of their own experiences.
- Discussion of a research project in Ireland, involving teenagers in dialogue about AI and disinformation.
- Findings: teens believe they know how to stay safe but actually lack understanding; they are aware of AI but don't understand algorithms.
- Unexpected findings: importance of influencers, teens requesting adults take responsibility, and the perception of families as a threat to privacy.
- Examples from other research: teen reactions to mobile phone restrictions, feeling unheard, and criticism of campaigns not made by young people.
- Conclusion: urge to involve young people in research and intervention design, and to listen to their voices.
Cited Sources
- UBU Investiga blog — The official blog of the University of Burgos research group, providing further information about their science communication activities and resources.
Contribution & Novelties
This talk contributes to the field of youth digital wellbeing by highlighting the critical importance of participatory research (co-design) in uncovering the actual concerns of adolescents, which often differ from adult assumptions. The speaker’s example of the Irish study shows that teens are more worried about algorithmic manipulation and family privacy violations than about the risks adults typically focus on, such as cyberbullying or addiction. The ‘blind spots’ identified — such as the ‘villains’ and sharenting — are not commonly discussed in mainstream prevention literature, offering fresh insights for researchers and practitioners. The narrative also underscores the power imbalance in current approaches, calling for a shift toward collaborative and youth-led methodologies.
Pour aller plus loin :
- Participatory design — A well-known approach to involving end-users in the design of interventions, directly related to the co-design methodology advocated in the talk.
- Sharenting — The practice of parents sharing children’s photos online, which the speaker identifies as a privacy concern raised by adolescents.
- Youth participation — A term encompassing various ways of involving young people in decision-making, relevant to the speaker’s call for giving youth voice and veto power.
- Patient and public involvement — A related concept in health research, often abbreviated as PPI, which the speaker mentions and applies to adolescent mental health and online safety.
215 words
Radar Profile
The radar profile shows a moderate balance across all dimensions. The talk scores highest on qualitative information (6-7) and lowest on technical level (4), indicating an accessible presentation of personal research findings rather than a data-driven or highly technical analysis. The fiabilite_globale is moderate (5) due to the absence of formal citations and reliance on anecdotal evidence, which is typical for a science communication event.