A Critical Theoretical Approach to Sport-Based Youth Development Research: Yosso’s Community Cultural Wealth Framework

Abstract

This paper proposes the application of Yosso’s Community Cultural Wealth (CCW) framework, rooted in the critical race theory (CRT), as a transformative lens for sport-based youth development (SBYD) research. Moving beyond traditional deficit-based models, which often depict youth as problematic or at-risk, CCW emphasizes recognizing and building upon the cultural strengths and assets of marginalized youth. We begin by reviewing the development of theoretical applications within the youth development, positive youth development (PYD), and SBYD literature to highlight the criticisms against conventional deficit-focused approaches. CCW offers an asset-oriented lens by offering six forms of capital—aspirational, linguistic, familial, social, navigational, and resistant—that are typically overlooked in mainstream frameworks. We illustrate how these forms of capital can reposition SBYD programs as spaces for cultivating resilience, identity, and social justice while addressing systemic inequities. By incorporating CCW with participatory research methods and critical theories, such as intersectionality and CRT, researchers can broaden the theoretical and methodological scope of SBYD. This paper concludes by suggesting practical implications for program design, organizational advocacy, and policy development, advocating for culturally responsive, community-led initiatives that prioritize the active engagement and empowerment of marginalized youth. In sum, CCW provides the “why” for critical SBYD research and practice.

1. Introduction

Researchers of sport-based youth development (SBYD) have increasingly recognized the importance of employing methods that move beyond the positivistic prioritization of quantitative outcomes (e.g., GPA improvements and delinquency reduction), as such approaches reinforce representations of youth participants as problematic or at-risk (Darnell & Hayhurst, 2011; Meir & Fletcher, 2019). A major methodological development in this field is the utilization of participatory research methods that engage youth in articulating their own experiences, co-creating the research process, and actively practicing reflexivity (McGarry et al., 2023; Sveinson et al., 2025; Vadeboncoeur et al., 2021). Specifically, participatory action research (PAR) and youth participatory action research (YPAR) have been proposed to transform the SBYD research design, process, and practice into a space where youth can create spaces to enhance their agency and exercise forms of action to promote a more equitable and anti-racist environment (Aldana & Richards-Schuster, 2021; Anderson, 2020; Meir & Fletcher, 2019; Nols et al., 2019). More recently, McGarry et al. (2023) contributed to this shift in methodological approach by detailing anti-racist research designs and practices that counter the conventional reliance on deficit narratives, which have framed marginalized youth as at-risk subjects to be educated and fixed through sport-based programming.

Along with these methodological advances, scholars have criticized the conventional SBYD framework that may theoretically reproduce functionalist and neo-liberal approaches (e.g., Coakley, 2011). This critique goes hand in hand with methodological advancements, as one cannot operate in a vacuum. As such, theoretical considerations may provide the “why” to the participatory research methods that address the “how” of SBYD research. McGarry et al. (2023) similarly highlighted that “theory and epistemology integrate to form methodology” (p. 188) and offered a critical theoretical discussion of ecological systems, anti-deficit achievement, and the critical race theory (CRT) as useful transformative frameworks for SBYD research.

Building on McGarry et al.’s (2023) theoretical contributions, this paper proposes Tara Yosso’s (2005) Community Cultural Wealth (CCW) framework—a CRT-based theorization of cultural capital—as a transformative theoretical approach to SBYD research. To do so, we begin by reviewing the literature on youth development, positive youth development (PYD), and SBYD, with a particular focus on the development and application of various theoretical perspectives. Next, we provide a comprehensive overview of critical approaches to these fields, starting with critiques of deficit-based models and culminating in a discussion of how, as an asset-oriented approach, CCW may illuminate how marginalized youth develop and sustain cultural wealth. Drawing on the interdisciplinary literature, this theoretical essay demonstrates how CCW can (re)frame sport in SBYD as a space with the potential to cultivate community-based assets such as resilience, identity formation, social networks, and efforts for social justice, while simultaneously addressing systemic inequities in conventional SBYD programming and policy. Yosso’s CCW centers on six forms of capital—aspirational, linguistic, familial, social, navigational, and resistant—that marginalized youth already possess but that conventional theoretical frameworks often overlook. Our goal is to contribute to the field of SBYD by offering a critical yet transformative theoretical framework that can inform both research and practice.

2. Critical Approach to Youth Development Research

Given the unavoidable “storm and stress” of adolescence described by Hall (1904), which significantly impacts youth populations, youth development was historically approached through a deficit-based model that emphasized risky and negative behaviors as issues to be addressed (Damon, 2004). Under this model, targeted youth, often referred to as “at-risk youth”, were defined as problems to be solved and treated as reactive service recipients by traditional youth development programs and organizations (Clonan-Roy et al., 2016; Lerner et al., 2005). However, since deficit-based models were rooted in colonial ideologies and neoliberalism—both of which devalued non-Western cultures and attributed economic, health, and educational disparities to individual failings—these approaches have posed significant barriers to the development of marginalized youth, who face poverty, limited access to education, and unequal resource distribution due to broader social and systemic inequalities (Baldridge, 2014; Pérez & Saavedra, 2017). For instance, racial and ethnic minority youth (e.g., Black and Latinx) may experience heightened discrimination stemming from the cultural deprivation narrative, which attributes poverty to inadequate home environments while overlooking the structural racism that produces unequal access to social goods, services, and opportunities based on race (Heard-Garris et al., 2021). Similarly, meritocratic narratives frame educational disparities as personal failures rather than consequences of unequal resource distribution (Lardier et al., 2019). Additionally, carceral logics shape programs targeting “at-risk” youth—particularly from racial and ethnic minority communities—by prioritizing surveillance and control over culturally relevant social and structural support (Selman, 2017).

To challenge and shift deficit-based assumptions that have historically limited the potential and opportunities of marginalized youth, the PYD paradigm emerged in the late twentieth century (Lerner et al., 2005). This paradigm emphasizes the positive qualities of all youth while positioning them as active partners supported by their communities (Lerner, 2004). The PYD model aims to nurture young people’s strengths and cultivate social support systems within familial, school, and community contexts (Damon, 2004). Lerner et al. (2005) proposed that PYD is characterized by five key components, known as the Five Cs: (a) competence, referring to the ability to navigate school, social interactions, and work effectively; (b) confidence, encompassing self-worth and a sense of mastery; (c) character, representing independence and individuality; (d) caring, involving empathy and compassion for others; and (e) connection, signifying strong relationships with people and social institutions. These Five Cs lead to a sixth C—contribution, which reflects active community engagement (Gonzalez et al., 2020). Studies guided by the PYD model, both conceptually and empirically, have sought to explain the possible antecedents and consequences of the Six Cs (Lerner et al., 2015). However, while the PYD model assumes dynamic relationships between individuals and their contexts in relation to psychosocial development, it has largely overlooked variations in the meaning, measurement, and learning pathways of PYD among diverse youth (Spencer & Spencer, 2014). These variations stem from lived experiences influenced by factors such as race, ethnicity, sexuality, and immigration status (Spencer & Spencer, 2014).

Despite the potential of PYD in empowering diverse youth, it lacks the consideration of the impact of power, privilege, and oppressive systems on their personal and social lives, which are embedded in complex sociopolitical issues (McDaniel, 2017). For example, youth in predominantly Black communities often encounter under-resourced public and social services, inequitable housing access, limited extracurricular opportunities, and environmental risks—conditions that intensify traumatic experience and perpetuate upward social immobility (Anderson et al., 2023; Merolla & Jackson, 2019). Moreover, PYD frameworks may impose white, middle-class norms as universal standards, overlooking the cultural realities of racially and economically marginalized communities (Harris & Outley, 2021). As awareness of systemic inequity grows and the importance of youth activism and civic engagement in transforming unjust systems becomes more apparent (Braxton, 2016), several scholars have called for the integration of critical theory and social justice into PYD programs (Cammarota, 2011; Case, 2017; Gonzalez et al., 2020; McDaniel, 2017). Gonzalez et al. (2020) introduced the Critical Positive Youth Development (CPYD) framework, which emphasizes critical consciousness as a means of empowering youth to recognize and reflect on oppressive social structures, a concept originally developed by Freire (1970). This framework identifies three key components that help build critical consciousness: (a) critical reflection, (b) political efficacy, and (c) critical action for social change (Gonzalez et al., 2020). Applying the CPYD framework can support the development of the Six Cs among marginalized youth, encouraging them to critically examine power structures in order to strengthen their ability and potential to bring about social change that challenges injustice. For instance, without understanding the complex interplay of power, privilege, and systemic issues, marginalized youth may struggle to build meaningful, equitable relationships (i.e., connection) or drive social change in communities affected by broader societal inequities (i.e., contribution). Similarly, Social Justice Youth Development (SJYD) (Cammarota, 2011; Ross, 2011) was conceptualized as a framework that incorporates three levels—self, community, and global awareness—to foster critical thinking and empathy through social justice education (Iwasaki, 2016). SJYD entails a critical examination of political, economic, and social influences, such as race, gender, class, and culture, while addressing the systemic causes of specific community issues (Wilson et al., 2006).

Some empirical studies have employed critical approaches to examine the PYD outcomes, experiences, and contextual assets of marginalized youth (Case, 2017; Tyler et al., 2020). For example, Tyler et al. (2020) examined the association between critical reflection and PYD outcomes (i.e., the Five Cs) among white and Black adolescents. The findings suggested that Black youth exhibited stronger critical racial reflection skills than white youth. However, Black youth’s critical reflection on the differing educational, employment, and life effects of racial/ethnic and socioeconomic factors was not associated with the Five Cs. Tyler et al. (2020) suggested that this may be due to the lack of supportive contexts that nurture critical consciousness, indicating that sociopolitical efficacy and critical action may be necessary to promote thriving. Building on the intersection of critical theory and PYD, Case’s (2017) ethnographic study of a nine-month leadership development program for marginalized youth in low-income urban communities highlighted the contextual assets that nurture their strengths. These assets include (a) empowering roles, (b) counterspaces and counternarratives that challenge deficit-based views, and (c) supportive relationships. Together, these factors—potentially cultivating personal agency, identity formation, and social support—may help facilitate resilience by moderating and protecting against the negative effects of discrimination and stressful experiences, which are shaped by individuals’ sociocultural environments, in ways that support psychosocial and emotional development (T. Y. Lee et al., 2012; Taylor & Giles, 2023).

In addition to the potential of CPYD and SJYD in fostering youth development, the community action framework for youth development (Connell & Gambone, 2002; Perkins et al., 2001) provides another perspective on community-based approaches to supporting marginalized youth. Although it does not explicitly address sociopolitical systems, the community action framework emphasizes the need to reform schools, public institutions, and policies that perpetuate inequities affecting economically and socially disadvantaged youth (Connell & Gambone, 2002). This framework is grounded in the belief that youth and their support networks, embedded within their communities, can act as powerful agents of change in culturally relevant programs and initiatives. Given the growing diversity of youth in terms of race, ethnicity, culture, and sexuality (Johnson, 2021; Soergel, 2021), adopting the community action framework—while ensuring cultural relevance and inclusivity—is valuable for fostering youth development in pluralistic societies.

3. Critical Approach to Sport-Based Youth Development Research

Despite various frameworks, PYD frameworks have been predominantly used in research studies on youth development through sport. Since the introduction of PYD frameworks into the mainstream of developmental science, youth sport programs have been recognized as valuable resources for fostering life skills and youth development (Jones et al., 2017). While sport participation is often assumed to naturally lead to positive development (see Coakley, 2011), research indicates that sport alone does not inherently promote PYD (Anderson-Butcher et al., 2014; Olushola et al., 2013; W. Lee et al., 2024). This underscores the need for alignment between intentionally designed programs and positive developmental outcomes (W. Lee et al., 2021). Programs that intentionally incorporate program elements with the goal of promoting PYD are referred to as SBYD programs (Whitley et al., 2019). Unlike traditional youth sport programs, SBYD programs deliberately focus on teaching life skills and fostering development through structured sport activities. Rooted in the PYD framework, SBYD programs enhance youth strengths and support their ability to interact effectively with their environments across various developmental contexts (Jones et al., 2020).

For the theoretical alignment of intended life skill outcomes with program components, SBYD research has often been guided by various theories and frameworks directly associated with target outcomes alongside PYD frameworks. In this research, SBYD settings and activities are theorized as conditions that cultivate specific developmental outcomes, supplementing PYD frameworks that lack standardized outcomes (Chowa et al., 2023). For example, the self-efficacy theory (Bandura, 1977) has been utilized to frame SBYD program elements and resources (e.g., mastery experiences, observing role models, social support, and stress management) as key drivers in the development of perceived self-efficacy in sport (Di Felice & Powell, 2021; Gano-Overway et al., 2009; Inoue et al., 2015). W. Lee et al. (2021) employed the Selection, Optimization, and Compensation framework (Gestsdóttir & Lerner, 2007) to design a theory-driven running program reflecting a goal-achievement process aimed at fostering intentional self-regulation. Additionally, the resilience theory (Zimmerman, 2013) has served as a guiding framework to explain how structured programs that provide challenging sport and physical activities within a supportive environment facilitate individual resilience (Tudor et al., 2020; White & Bennie, 2015). Importantly, although it is widely assumed that the outcomes gained through SBYD programs transfer to other domains (e.g., academic and social; Turnnidge et al., 2014), inconsistent findings highlight the need for further theoretical development to clarify how skills learned in sport contexts contribute to skill development in other domains, ultimately achieving the primary objectives of SBYD programs (W. Lee et al., 2021).

In addition to theorizing the relationship between intended outcomes and programs, researchers have advanced general SBYD principles by emphasizing the importance of the PYD climate (i.e., social resources) surrounding programs (Holt et al., 2017). Positive relationships with and social support from family, peers, and coaches have been predominantly found to play a critical role in program engagement, motivation, and a sense of belonging, which are key drivers of positive youth–environment interactions for developmental outcomes (Anderson-Butcher et al., 2014; Olushola et al., 2013; W. Lee et al., 2021). Additionally, these principles have often been integrated with the social identity theory (Tajfel, 1981), emphasizing the psychological processes by which youth participants internalize norms, values, and beliefs shared within SBYD programs (Bruner et al., 2018). In line with this, a recent study demonstrated the relatively greater impact of program-based social identity on socially marginalized youth (W. Lee et al., 2024). This study highlights the complex interrelatedness of social influences within youths’ social ecology and underscores the necessity of critical approaches to understanding the varied participant experiences influenced by their social backgrounds.

The scholarly recognition of heterogeneous experiences in SBYD programs has facilitated the integration of critical theories and theoretical frameworks that challenge the conventional assumption that SBYD programs universally benefit all youth (Kochanek & Erickson, 2020). Specifically, researchers have critiqued hegemonic practices and neoliberal agendas within SBYD programs, highlighting how these initiatives may reproduce systemic oppression based on racial and economic disparities, tokenize minoritized youth for funding purposes, and prioritize white, Western-centric developmental standards (Burnett, 2015; Morgan & Parker, 2023). Employing a critical lens has deepened the understanding of experiences among youth from minoritized backgrounds (e.g., youth of color, girls, and those from lower socioeconomic classes) within SBYD contexts, prompting a reimagining of the future direction of SBYD programs. Despite the presence of various critical theories in the SBYD literature, this paper specifically examines the utility of CRT and critical pedagogy.

CRT has been increasingly employed to center race/racism in the exploration of PYD through sport (e.g., Brooks et al., 2017; McGarry et al., 2023). CRT is a framework that examines how racism is embedded in social structures, institutions, and policies, challenging the idea that racial inequality is solely the result of individual bias (Yosso, 2005). It critiques dominant ideologies (e.g., white-centric normative development standards), emphasizing the importance of centering the voices and experiences of racially minoritized communities to address systemic oppression (Yosso, 2002). The application of CRT to SBYD research helps uncover the limitations of SBYD programs that guide youth of color to conform to oppressive structures and expectations instead of empowering them to cultivate life skills for social change (Kochanek & Erickson, 2020; McGarry et al., 2023). Additionally, by prioritizing the voices and knowledge of historically marginalized participants, research has identified the unique disadvantages that youth of color experience (e.g., unequal accessibility to sport opportunities, equipment, and resources; Brooks et al., 2017; Kochanek & Erickson, 2020; McGarry et al., 2023).

Similarly, critical pedagogy, as both a theoretical and practical framework, challenges conventional assumptions, ideas, and practices within SBYD programs. Rooted in Paulo Freire’s (1972) work Pedagogy of the Oppressed, it positions education as a means for liberation rather than an act of dominance or oppression. Guided by this perspective, researchers critique the disconnect between educational philosophies and traditional SBYD approaches, which often employ a “banking” education model (Morgan & Parker, 2023). In banking education, youth are viewed as passive recipients constrained by externally imposed rules, skills, and values from coaches, without the opportunity for questioning, reflection, or active engagement in understanding deeper meanings or implications (Jeanes & Spaaij, 2015). The utility of critical pedagogy in SBYD research lies in its ability to position youth as the co-creators of program outcomes and to redefine positive outcomes—such as problem-posing and critical reflection—that are essential for challenging oppression and fostering transformative action (Spaaij et al., 2016). Thus, critical pedagogy provides significant implications for caring adults (e.g., coaches and educators) and program managers by emphasizing the importance of integrating critical reflection on community needs to empower youth and promote social transformation (Morgan & Parker, 2023).

4. Yosso’s Community Cultural Wealth Framework

It is important to adopt an asset-based lens when examining the cultural capital of minoritized youth in SBYD (Sports-Based Youth Development) programs as it serves as a tool for researchers to recognize, name, and amplify the cultural assets and resources that marginalized youth bring, develop, and contribute in these programs. Yosso’s (2005) work critically reexamined the concept of cultural capital as previously defined by earlier scholars. Her theoretical intervention offers culturally sensitive and socially inclusive perspectives, allowing social scientists to understand how established definitions of cultural capital have often overlooked important dimensions of race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and class. Yosso highlighted how asymmetric power structures perpetuate exclusivity in the formation and recognition of cultural capital. In this section, we outline Yosso’s Community Cultural Wealth (CCW), emphasizing the importance of the diverse knowledge, histories, and capacities that minoritized communities possess.

Putnam (2000) emphasized the critical role of individuals’ social networks in developing social capital. Although he did not specifically address cultural capital, his concept of social capital parallels what we refer to as cultural capital in this paper. According to Putnam (2000), “Social capital refers to connections among individuals—social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them” (p. 16). He argued that social capital can be cultivated through these connections, enabling individuals to acquire intangible and invisible resources that help them transcend social challenges. While Putnam highlights the importance of bonding within a community to reinforce social capital through “dense networks”, his framework often overlooks the influence of the existing social hierarchies on one’s access to these networks.

Bourdieu (1993; also Bourdieu & Passeron, 1977) argued that social hierarchies define the meanings of culture and cultural capital, which are contingent upon power dynamics. In his analysis, Bourdieu viewed cultural capital as a restricted form of production because those in power—specifically the bourgeoisie, referring to elite whites—limit access to elite or high culture, such as classical music and literature. Bourdieu posited that cultural capital is shared among “socially homologous consumers” (p. 55), reinforcing the structure of inequality between dominant and subordinate individuals in society and normalizing differences and inequalities. Bourgeois culture, centered on whiteness, is deemed a social norm that culturally pressures individuals to conform while devaluing the popular cultures of the proletariat, referring to minoritized people in this paper. From this perspective, minoritized communities are often perceived as lacking appropriate culture and cultural capital, with limited opportunities to acquire them due to the exclusionary nature of access to social hierarchies. This exclusion frequently silences minoritized communities and disregards their self-determination.

Following the tradition of ethnic studies, which encourages the reexamination of knowledge production to envision possibilities for social change, Yosso sought to transform the concept of cultural capital into cultural wealth. She aimed to better contextualize the cultures embedded in and celebrated by minoritized communities as valuable resources these communities use to navigate society. Her analysis of cultural wealth focused on racially minoritized communities, engaging with CRT to explore how race functions as a social determinant that intersects with and shapes individuals’ experiences alongside cultural wealth. Yosso examined the margins of society, where race is constructed and cultures are racialized, to identify how minoritized people learn and consolidate their cultural wealth. Scholar-activist bell hooks (2004) urged scholars to recognize the margins of racialized society as spaces where oppression is articulated but also where collective hope for social change emerges. She further noted the following:

(Studying on the margin) reminded us of the existence of a whole universe. A main body made up of both margin and centre [sic]. Our survival depended on an ongoing public awareness of the separation between margin and centre [sic] and an ongoing private acknowledgment that we were a necessary, vital part of that whole (p. 20).

For Yosso, the margin is not only a place where minoritized people encounter struggles but also where they can resist systemic racism and navigate a racialized society. Race is not merely a singular identity; rather, it is a social construction. Therefore, race should be central in analyzing CCW.

Yosso (2005, pp. 77–81) identified six forms of Community Cultural Wealth. By focusing on the margins, she argued that all people, regardless of their identities, possess narratives, abilities, knowledge, cultures, and histories that enable them to strengthen their networks within their communities and to expand and proliferate their cultural wealth:

• Aspirational capital: the ability to maintain hopes and dreams for the future, even in the face of real and perceived barriers.
• Linguistic capital: the intellectual and social skills attained through communication in multiple languages and/or language styles (including communication through art, music, poetry, theatre, and dance).
• Social capital: networks of people and community resources.
• Navigational capital: skills in maneuvering through social institutions. Historically, this implies the ability to navigate institutions not created with Communities of Color (referred to as minoritized communities in this paper) in mind.
• Familial capital: the cultural knowledge nurtured among familia (kin) that carries a sense of community history, memory, and cultural intuition.
• Resistant capital: the knowledge and skills fostered through oppositional behavior that challenges inequality.

These forms of cultural wealth are interconnected. For example, social capital can be developed through family networks (familial capital) or through one’s ability to communicate with others (linguistic capital). The development of social capital also enhances one’s ability to utilize social resources (navigational capital) when navigating racial struggles (resistant capital). In this way, seemingly independent forms of cultural wealth collectively function within minoritized communities, reinforcing and supporting each other.

Previous studies have applied Yosso’s (2005) CCW in various contexts to better understand how youth from minoritized and historically marginalized communities navigate challenges and how CCW contributes to their development. Given that the social structure is racially constructed (Harris, 1993), access to educational opportunities and infrastructure is often racialized. Cooper et al. (2010) examined how minoritized students from low socioeconomic backgrounds often lack access to critical knowledge, such as college admission-related information and Advanced Placement (AP) courses, which is essential for academic success. This “high-stakes information” refers to “the type of information that leads students to understand the school culture, policies, and practices in ways in which they can access, embrace, and develop a strong academic self-identity” (Cooper et al., 2010, p. 74). Unfortunately, the unequal distribution of this knowledge reinforces disparities in educational opportunities. Despite these challenges, students employed forms of CCW to acquire the necessary information, even when it was not readily available in school settings. For instance, students developed social capital not only through schools but also via community organizations or churches, which facilitated the building of navigational capital and connections to mentors. Additionally, family members shared aspirations for college education, intertwining familial capital and aspirational capital.

Brandehoff’s (2024) study highlighted the significance of mentorship among Latinx students in rural regions. For these youth, mentorship served not only as navigational capital but also as familial capital, as mentors understood the students’ “racial and cultural traditions, familial obligations, and social expectations” (Brandehoff, 2024, p. 1321). In areas where professional mentorship programs are less accessible, “naturally-occurring mentorships” often arise through family (e.g., uncles, brothers, and sisters), employment (e.g., employers), or school (e.g., teachers). These mentors advised and supported students in overcoming challenges related to housing, education, and employment. In this context, Yosso’s CCW framework proved useful in acknowledging underrepresented narratives and humanizing the often-ignored lived experiences of minoritized youth in educational settings.

Linguistic capital is fundamentally important to immigrant communities. However, U.S. education, particularly at the K-12 level, often homogenizes the distinct racial and cultural differences among immigrant students (Ledesma & Calderón, 2015). Kiramba and Oloo (2023) argue that the unique perspectives and experiences that African-born immigrant youth bring to American classrooms are systematically erased. This erasure occurs through education’s linear and homogeneous representation of Blackness, which forces students to conform to a singular notion of Blackness prevalent in the U.S. Despite this, African immigrant youth utilize multiple languages (e.g., Ghanaian English, French, and American English) in their English Language Learning classrooms to communicate more effectively with their peers. This linguistic capital enhances their learning experiences and helps them develop strong social connections (social capital) with other immigrant students. The assimilationist perspective, rooted in white supremacy, insists that immigrants must conform to the dominant culture, often resulting in the erasure or replacement of their ethnic identities with whiteness (Jung, 2015; Ong, 2003). In contrast, Yosso’s (2005) Community Cultural Wealth (CCW) framework argues that all students’ differences should be recognized and their cultures viewed as valuable resources. This inclusive approach can help immigrant students cultivate a sense of community, belonging, and educational excellence.

Extending the previous literature on Yosso’s (2005) CCW to sport, this concept shifts the approach to SBYD from “fixing” minoritized youth to leveraging the inherent cultural assets nurtured within their communities. Hylton and Long (2024) explored how South Asian communities navigated immigrant struggles and established CCW through their participation in cricket in the British context. Historically, Asianness has been portrayed as antithetical to the ideal sporting identity due to socially constructed stereotypes of Asians as physically weak and culturally unassimilable (Park, 2024). By engaging in cricket, South Asians used their sporting identity to challenge these racialized representations, which often positioned them as outsiders in a norm centered on whiteness. Cricket provided a critical space for South Asians to develop social networks (social capital) and communicate comfortably via language-switching between English and their native languages. This bilingual ability fostered a strong sense of community. The social capital nurtured through cricket enabled South Asians to create co-ethnic cricket leagues, inviting more South Asians who had faced exclusion or a lack of inclusiveness in mainstream cricket clubs. Thus, cricket facilitated the development of social, navigational, resistant, and linguistic capitals among South Asians.

From this perspective, participation in sport closely tied to a specific ethnic identity plays a crucial role in developing and solidifying various forms of CCW. Shin et al. (2025) explored the cultural meanings of Taekwondo, a South Korean martial art, to articulate how its practice enables Korean American youth to learn South Korean culture and language while strengthening transnational connections with their extended families in South Korea. Yosso’s (2005) forms of CCW were evident in this study. Given that the official language of Taekwondo is Korean, Korean American youth learn their heritage language while practicing and communicating with their Taekwondo masters. This linguistic capital helps them acquire South Korean cultural proprieties and behavioral norms. It also enhances familial capital, as Korean American youth can better communicate with their first-generation immigrant parents. Sharing cultural experiences fosters stronger bonds between foreign-born parents and their American-born children. Focusing on family dynamics, the authors proposed transnational capital as a new form of CCW, allowing Korean American youth to connect more effectively with extended family, particularly grandparents, across the world. Taekwondo, thus, helps establish CCW within local communities and globally.

Sport provides a crucial context for analyzing how Yosso’s (2005) forms of CCW are developed and facilitated. Particularly for Asian American youth, sport participation helps cultivate navigational and resistant capitals. Historically, Asian representation in sport has been racialized (Arnaldo, 2024; Thangaraj, 2015; Shin et al., 2025), often stigmatizing Asian youth as anti-sporting and marginalizing them within U.S. society. However, through sport, Asian youth can strengthen self-determination and skills to navigate and challenge racialized representations and associated stereotypes. In the following section, we will discuss how researchers in the social sciences can apply Yosso’s (2005) CCW framework to study youth development.

5. Application of Community Cultural Wealth Framework to SBYD Research

With its CRT- and asset-based theorization, Yosso’s (2005) CCW framework offers a transformative lens for SBYD research. We argue that adopting CCW as a guiding framework will allow researchers to shift focus from deficit-based understandings to asset-oriented approaches. CCW centers on the cultural resources, assets, and strengths of marginalized communities by identifying six forms of capital outlined in the previous section. In this section, we propose the ways in which CCW and each form of capital can be applied as a theoretical guide in SBYD research. We also discuss how CCW can inform future practices in SBYD programming and design. We begin with three holistic applications of CCW as a theoretical framework for advancing critical SBYD scholarship.

First, CCW can help researchers center youth-led and community-led models that leverage cultural assets as a foundational infrastructure for youth from marginalized communities. By reframing research paradigms, researchers can focus on how sport serves as a space for collective empowerment rather than as a tool to “fix” or “correct” youth. In this way, CCW enables researchers to redefine measurement metrics for SBYD programs (e.g., GPA improvements) to prioritize asset- and community-defined markers of development (Estes et al., 2023; McWhirter et al., 2021; Rooney, 2018). This reframing also reveals how conventional SBYD frameworks, such as positive youth development (PYD), may individualize systemic inequities (Gonzalez et al., 2020). For example, a CCW-informed study might examine how an SBYD program focusing on life skills development could inadvertently stigmatize and potentially erase the resistance strategies youth acquire from within and through their communities (i.e., resistant capital).

Second, CCW allows researchers to build an interdisciplinary theory map for SBYD research by coupling it with like-minded theoretical frameworks. Since CCW has its roots in CRT, there is a natural synergy between CCW and CRT. Deliberately integrating CCW with CRT’s broader tenets enhances the criticality and depth of analyzing and interpreting the sport context in SBYD research. Specifically, Solórzano’s (1997, 1998) five tenets of CRT can further inform critical SBYD research. These include (a) the intercentricity of race and racism with other forms of subordination, (b) the challenge to dominant ideology, (c) the centrality of experiential knowledge, (d) the transdisciplinary perspective, and (e) the commitment to social justice. By combining CCW and CRT’s five tenets, SBYD research can identify how race and racism, which are endemic in the social structure, shape youth experiences (Bell, 1992). This combination also challenges the notion of neutral research or objective researchers by centering the epistemology of marginalized youth and the experiential knowledge created through participation in SBYD programs (Delgado Bernal, 1998; Ladson-Billings, 2000). As CRT transcends disciplinary boundaries, this combination also allows SBYD researchers to consult scholarship from ethnic studies, gender and women’s studies, disability studies, and other fields (Garcia, 1995). These benefits culminate in a social justice research agenda that transforms SBYD research into an active response to oppression (Matsuda, 1991). An example of research informed by this theoretical combination includes mapping the existing racial capitalism in SBYD research and practice (Beutin, 2017; Bhattacharyya, 2018; Leong, 2012; Mower et al., 2023). Analyzing how SBYD programs targeting “at-risk” marginalized youth have often commodified their identity can reveal underlying capitalistic purposes, such as initiating partnerships with corporations (i.e., corporate social responsibility) or raising funds and donations. As such, the interplay between CCW and CRT enables researchers to recognize how even well-intentioned SBYD programs may inadvertently reinforce racial stereotypes, biases, and hierarchies (Kochanek & Erickson, 2020).

Third, a powerful theoretical synergy can emerge by integrating CCW with intersectionality (Crenshaw, 1989). This combination helps researchers create a multidimensional model for examining how marginalized youth navigate interlocking systems of oppression. The counternarrative deriving from intersecting marginalized identities can be actively revealed as both CCW and intersectionality, rooted in CRT, challenge power embedded in social and cultural hierarchies and knowledge production (Acevedo & Solorzano, 2023; Stebleton & Jehangir, 2020). For example, CCW coupled with intersectionality can be used to investigate how a Black young woman’s development of social networks may differ significantly from that of an Asian young man in an SBYD program due to the compounded effects of racism, sexism, and other oppressive structures each faces differently (Collins, 2015, 2019).

Beyond its use as a holistic framework, each of the six forms of CCW offers theoretical contributions to critically understanding how marginalized youth socialize, navigate, transform, and leverage SBYD programs and contexts for development and resistance.

• Aspirational capital provides a theoretical lens to examine how marginalized youth nurture and sustain hopes and dreams through SBYD programs despite oppressive social structures and institutional barriers (Yosso, 2005). Using aspirational capital, SBYD researchers can reframe tenacity as a culturally developed asset rather than individual grit. Aspirational capital challenges the conventional SBYD models that define a program’s success through positivistic, meritocratic, or narrow metrics such as college admission or GPA. It offers an alternative framework to investigate how youth use sport contexts, spaces, and communities to envision a future beyond limited opportunity structures (Harry, 2023). For example, researchers can explore how SBYD programming may nurture or impede the development of aspirational capital among youth from different cultural backgrounds, especially as they navigate systems not designed for them (Ofoegbu et al., 2022).
• Linguistic capital enables a theoretical reconfiguration of SBYD research by positioning sport as a holistic form of communication with distinctive cultural compositions, patterns, and expressions. By employing this lens, researchers can identify the multilingual capabilities youth develop through participation in sport. These capabilities, represented as linguistic capital, extend beyond verbal communication to include cultural, historical, and embodied knowledge expressed, learned, and sustained within communities (Yosso, 2005). A recent study by Shin et al. (2025) demonstrated the development of linguistic capital through diasporic youth’s participation in an ethnic sport, as they acquired heritage language and ethnic cultural knowledge embodied in the ethnic sporting practice. Thus, linguistic capital can be used to examine how, for example, SBYD programs with cultural components (i.e., ethnic and heritage) are integral to youth development by creating spaces where bilingualism and cultural, embodied knowledge are valued rather than suppressed (Shin et al., 2025).
• Social capital reconceptualizes SBYD research to examine how participation in SBYD programs can facilitate the building, access, and leveraging of complex social and community networks that extend beyond the simplistic “role model” approach. It enables repositioning youth as active agents with agency in creating, nurturing, and strengthening networks and resources, rather than as passive recipients of mentorship and guidance. As active agents, youth in SBYD programs not only build their social networks and resources but also share the information and resources they gain with their communities (Yosso, 2005). Researchers can also examine how the development and operation of social capital differ for youth across racial, gender, and class contexts. Rather than assuming universal benefits of socialization in sport, CCW and social capital in particular pay attention to how social capital functions specifically as a collective community resource for marginalized communities.
• Navigational capital allows SBYD researchers to shift focus from individual skill-building to understanding how marginalized youth develop and utilize strategies to maneuver through social institutions not designed with them in mind, which can be hostile or exclusionary (Ofoegbu et al., 2022). A notable benefit of employing navigational capital in SBYD research is the potential to identify how sport, as a social, cultural, and political institution, may reproduce institutional barriers while equipping youth with tools to overcome them. To achieve this potential, SBYD research may, for example, examine the experiences of youth in regular SBYD programs compared to those in ethnic/cultural/heritage sport-based programs. Western/European/predominantly white sports may perpetuate racialized development schemes due to the inherent structure and history of the sport (Park, 2024). Examining how youth from racially and ethnically minoritized backgrounds develop navigational capital in and through ethnic/cultural/heritage sport-based development programs can expand SBYD research.
• Familial capital advances SBYD research by redefining the relationships between youth, support systems, and communities as extended kinship. According to Yosso (2005), extended kinship extends beyond biological family and relatives to include chosen family and cultural narratives, memories, and knowledge nurtured among extended kinship (Delgado Bernal, 2002). Yosso (2005) also highlighted sport as one of the critical community settings that can foster familial capital because sport minimizes isolation and allow youth to connect with others. Researchers can use familial capital to examine how SBYD programs can foster extended kinship among youth and extend and strengthen the familial capital youth already possess.
• Resistant capital fundamentally transforms SBYD research by positioning SBYD programs not just as platforms for individual development but as sites for nurturing critical consciousness to challenge oppressive and inequitable structures (Yosso, 2005). The knowledge, skills, and abilities fostered through oppositional behavior can be considered valuable cultural and developmental assets and an important part of the projected outcomes of SBYD programs. Using resistant capital, SBYD research can explore how SBYD programs equip youth to recognize and transform oppressive conditions instead of merely keeping them “out of trouble”. When informed by Freirean critical consciousness (1970), researchers can identify how SBYD programs motivate youth to work toward social and racial justice.

6. Conclusions

Based on the theoretical utilities that CCW offers in challenging conventional SBYD research and frameworks, we suggest three implications for SBYD practices to conclude this paper. First, CCW can inform program design in SBYD. By incorporating linguistic capital, social capital, and familial capital, SBYD programs can provide culturally sustaining pedagogies. These pedagogies should include educational components focused on heritage language and tradition, community mentors who act as networks and extended kin, and ethnic sport components that help youth maintain and strengthen community-based cultural assets. Second, CCW can guide SBYD organizations, particularly those working with marginalized youth, in building structural advocacy by developing navigational capital, resistant capital, and social capital. Partnering with grassroots organizations, such as ethnic and immigrant organizations, will enable these programs to effectively address inequities in funding, recruitment, facility access, and representation by sharing resistant knowledge and resources. Third, from a policy perspective, CCW can inform the reconsideration of resource allocation. As CCW emphasizes agency and asset-based understanding at the community level, directly allocating funding to community-led SBYD initiatives, as opposed to top-down interventions, will foster more active, culturally responsive youth development.

In this paper, we proposed Yosso’s (2005) CCW framework, an asset-based theorization of cultural capital, as a transformative approach to SBYD research. We outlined the literature on youth development, positive youth development (PYD), and SBYD with a particular focus on the development and application of theories. We also offered a critical analysis of the literature to highlight the potential for adopting CCW as an alternative framework for future SBYD research. As suggested above, CCW and its six capitals have significant merits in advancing and reframing SBYD research and practice. We call for future research by SBYD scholars to actively engage with critical theories, particularly CCW, as a tool that enhances the critical epistemology for SBYD research.