Contributions of young people in dialogue with scientific evidence on sexual consent

The paper situates citizen participation in science as both a right and a driver of social impact, emphasizing co-creation approaches that move participants from passive subjects to active collaborators. Prior traditions of citizen science have often focused on data collection, but deeper participation (co-creation) is linked to greater engagement and social transformation. The Communicative Methodology is highlighted as a pioneering approach that fosters egalitarian, intersubjective dialogue between researchers and participants to co-create knowledge with social impact. The research addresses a gap concerning the specific benefits and processes of engaging young people (18–25) in scientific dialogue, especially on sexual consent. The study aims to understand how involving youth in evidence-based, dialogic exploration of sexual consent (beyond speech acts) can challenge their realities, improve understanding, and empower them to identify and avoid coercive situations. It frames consent analysis through concepts such as coercive discourse, interactive power, pre-consent, and communicative acts beyond verbal expressions.

The authors review scholarship on citizen participation, citizen science, and co-creation, noting that while fields like biology and ecology have long engaged citizens (often in data collection), social sciences are increasingly adopting deeper participatory roles that can transform both knowledge and practice. The Communicative Methodology is presented as a well-established framework recognized by the European Commission for integrating participants' voices through dialogic, egalitarian interactions to achieve social impact, including among vulnerable populations. The literature also points to youth as a vulnerable group with reduced access to institutions and highlights that access to science education can mitigate vulnerability. Efforts to engage youth (e.g., museums, extracurricular programs, BioBlitzes) show promise but often remain at shallow levels of participation; less is known about co-creation with youth in deeper stages of the research process. The review identifies theoretical lenses critical to understanding consent: coercive discourse, interactive power, informed consent, pre-consent, communicative acts beyond speech, and models of masculinity.

Design: The study employed Communicative Methodology, centering intersubjective, egalitarian dialogue. Two key elements were: (1) co-creation of a data collection instrument (questionnaire-script) with researchers and an Advisory Committee; and (2) dialogic data collection with youth using that tool. Instrument co-creation: A questionnaire-script was developed from a review of 153 scientific articles on sexual consent and refined through co-creation with the CONSENT project’s Advisory Committee comprising young individuals and professionals working with youth (e.g., youth leisure foundation staff, gender violence platform leadership, educators, and a political science academic with nightlife experience). The instrument both conveyed up-to-date evidence on sexual consent and invited discussion of participants’ experiences or third-party situations related to consent and coercion. Researchers ensured fidelity to scientific evidence while integrating committee-suggested examples, explanations, and questions. Participants and sampling: N=77 young adults aged 18–25 from six regions in Spain (Catalonia, Valencian Community, Galicia, Madrid, Basque Country, Andalusia). Recruitment began via researchers’ contacts (avoiding conflicts of interest with any current or future students) and expanded through snowball sampling. The sample was diverse in context and education; many self-identified as students. Gender distribution: 26 male, 51 female. Education: Postgraduate (8), University students (52), High School (10), Other-Education (1), Other-Employment (6). Data collection: Communicative daily life stories (n=50; 18 male, 32 female) and communicative discussion groups (n=7 groups; 8 male, 19 female; 28 participants total), prioritizing natural friendship groups (2–7 members) to encourage candid discussion and reduce conformity risks. Fieldwork occurred June–October 2021 via Microsoft Teams, recorded with consent and transcribed. All participants provided informed consent and were anonymized; researchers conducted all sessions and used the questionnaire-script to anchor conversations in evidence rather than opinion. Analytic framework: Transcripts were systematically categorized using two main evidence-based categories: (1) Coercive discourse—socialization linking attractiveness with violent attitudes/behaviors, normalizing coercion and labeling non-violent options as less exciting; and (2) Interactive power—context-dependent influence arising from interpersonal dynamics beyond institutional hierarchies, shaping agency and power imbalances. Related concepts subsumed under these categories included pre-consent, informed consent, and “consented but unwanted.” Ethics and governance: The study was conducted within the CONSENT project (PID2019-110466RB-100). Ethical approval: CREA ethics committee reference 20230328. Informed consent procedures ensured voluntary participation and the right to withdraw without consequence.

• Dialogic engagement with scientific evidence enabled youth to identify consent/coercion elements beyond speech acts, refining their concrete understanding of consent as a prerequisite for freedom and non-coercive relationships.
• Interactive power and pre-consent: Participants recognized how certain contexts or actions (e.g., going to a private space, nonverbal closeness) can be misread as consent and create difficulty in withdrawing due to indirect pressure. Youth described “pre-consent” interpretations (e.g., touching hair perceived as a green light) and the need to signal non-interest through nonverbal “negative pre-consent” cues (e.g., placing hands away).
• Coercive discourse and peer pressure: Both women and men reported consenting to unwanted sexual activity due to social pressure, desire to avoid judgment, or to have something to report to peers. Participants articulated how coercive discourse can masquerade as sexual freedom, pressuring engagement rather than abstention.
• Communicative acts as strategies: Youth reported using communicative acts beyond words (e.g., eye contact seeking a friend’s help) to navigate or exit coercive situations, highlighting that consent cannot be reduced to explicit verbal yes/no.
• Enhanced awareness and empowerment: Exposure to scientific concepts (coercive discourse, interactive power, informed consent) prompted re-interpretation of past experiences, recognition that “what happened has a name,” and increased vigilance. Some participants followed up after interviews to report additional incidents they newly recognized as problematic (e.g., stealthing, dismissing prior limits with “we’ll see”). A male participant reflected that consent does not rely solely on hearing “yes.”
• Implications for practice: Findings suggest incorporating these youth-informed insights into sexual consent awareness campaigns to better resonate with lived realities and address pre-consent dynamics, interactive power, and nonverbal communicative acts.

The findings indicate that co-creation and egalitarian dialogue with young people meaningfully deepen the scientific understanding of sexual consent beyond speech acts. By analyzing coercive discourse and interactive power in concrete, lived situations, participants and researchers co-constructed knowledge that clarifies how consent is formed, inferred, or undermined in everyday interactions. This addresses the research aim by demonstrating that youth participation at deeper scientific process levels improves both participants’ empowerment (recognition, avoidance of coercion) and the refinement of scientific concepts relevant to consent. The participatory, communicative approach enhanced engagement, candor, and reflection, yielding insights into pre-consent signals, peer norms, and nonverbal strategies often missed in top-down campaigns. These results underscore the relevance of embedding evidence-based, dialogic practices in consent education and awareness initiatives, amplifying youth voices to increase effectiveness and social impact. The study contributes to advancing theory (e.g., operationalizing interactive power and coercive discourse in consent contexts) and practice (guidance for campaigns and prevention). The work also highlights the importance of community science in bridging gaps between research and practice: as participants internalize concepts, they report behavioral intentions and awareness shifts that can foster safer environments. Incorporating these insights into public messaging may better counteract coercive norms and misinterpretations of consent, particularly in pre-consent situations.

This study demonstrates that engaging young people (18–25) in co-created, evidence-based dialogue about sexual consent enhances their ability to recognize coercive dynamics and broadens the scientific understanding of consent as constituted through communicative acts beyond speech. The co-created questionnaire-script and communicative methodology effectively connected cutting-edge research with lived experiences, generating social impact for participants and actionable insights for awareness campaigns and prevention. Future research directions include: assessing the long-term impact of such dialogues on youths’ identification of coercion and consent, extending the approach to other age groups and cultural contexts, and monitoring whether natural friendship groups sustain ongoing conversations that reinforce protective effects. Integrating participants’ voices into consent education and campaigns is recommended to improve relevance, accuracy, and effectiveness.

The authors note limitations related to scope and generalizability: the co-creation approach was conducted with a specific population of young people aged 18–25 in Spain, which may limit transferability to other age groups or cultural contexts. As a qualitative study using communicative daily life stories and discussion groups, findings provide rich insights but are not fully generalizable to the wider population.