Politics, Citizenship and Rights

422 Pages·4.839 MB·English

by  Kirsi Kallio, Sarah Mills, Tracey Skelton (eds.)

Politics,CitizenshipandRights
DOI10.1007/978-981-4585-94-1_1-1
#SpringerScience+BusinessMediaSingapore2015
’
Children and Young People s Political Participation: A Critical Analysis
AnnE.Bartos*
SchoolofEnvironment,TheUniversityofAuckland,Auckland,NewZealand
Abstract
This chapter interrogates some of the debates within childhood research regarding the concept of
children’s participation. The chapter traces the prevalence of the concept through the United Nations
Convention on theRights ofthe Child and academic discourse. Incorporatingnotions ofparticipation in
childhood research has encouraged researchers and development agents to include space for children’s
voices, involve children as research agents, and seek creative ways to incorporate methods that promote
children’sparticipation.However,thereisoftenlittlediscussionofthenormativeassumptionsunderlying
participation projects and what this means for how and why we work with children in the ways that we
do. Such normative assumptions implied and made visible through participatory discourses are that we
need to listen to the voices of children, that they have individual human rights that must be upheld and
honored, and that children, as beings, are important and need to be included in research. Each of these
points has enabled children’s participation in research to become normalized and legitimized. Likewise,
children’sresearchershavemadeincrediblestridesintheinternationalresearchcommunitybypromoting
thevalueofchildrenaspoliticalagents,publicizingthevarietyofwayschildrenparticipateinP/politics,
and demonstrating the ways they are indeed political. This chapter opens up the space needed to
interrogate assumptions of children’s participation in an effort to help us think more critically about our
research programs so that we can challenge ourselves to entertain creative, ethical, diverse, and
empowering research methods with the children and youth whose political agency we aim to better
understand.
Keywords
Participation; Child rights; UNCRC; NSSC; Participatory research; Child’s voice; Student councils;
Research methodology; Embodiment; Relationality
1 Introduction
The concept of participation is often heralded as the most significant factor in understanding children’s
politics aswellastheirengagementinresearchprojects. Inordertounpackchildrenandyoungpeople’s
understandings and practices of/in politics, researchers often look to both increase and expand the ways
young people participate in P/politics, whereas big “P” politics includes state-centered, formal, and
institutional politics, while little “p” politics includes the more mundane, personal, and micro-politics
ofeverydaylife.Likewise,acommonconcernandmotivationforacademicsworkingwithyouthistofind
newwaysofincludingchildrenandyoungpeople,inanearnestefforttoincreasetheirparticipationinthe
researchproject.ThisdistinctionbetweenparticipationinP/politicsandparticipationinresearchisrarely
*Email:[email protected]
Page1of15
Politics,CitizenshipandRights
DOI10.1007/978-981-4585-94-1_1-1
#SpringerScience+BusinessMediaSingapore2015
untangledintheliterature.Rather,thenormativegoalofincreasedparticipation,ingeneral,isaprevalent
concern across childhood studies.
Increasingchildrenandyoungpeople’sparticipation inresearch projectsorinP/politicsmayproveto
be an effective way to expose challenges uniquely faced by youth, draw attention to various forms of
agency, and empower youth to get involved, take initiative, and stimulate change in their communities.
However,somescholarsarebeginningtoengageinmorecriticaldialogueregardingtheoverarchingaims
of participation and indicate an effort to unpack its unproblematized goals. Since the late 1980s and
throughoutmuchoftheresearchtoday,thepredominantfocusonparticipationhasnotonlybeenregarded
as a requirement for most research projects with children and young people, but is often seen as the end
goal.Thisperspectivesuggestsashort-sightedapproachtoworkingwithchildrenandyoungpeople;we
are bound to ignore other factors that also contribute to better understandings of the P/politics in young
people’s lives or illuminate new and innovative ways to work with children and young people in our
research. As critical research on childhood and youth is growing in popularity, it is appropriate for us to
takeastepback,slowdown,andposeprovocative questionsaboutsomeofthemaintenets thatdriveso
much of our research.
Thischapteraimstohighlightsomeofthesedebatesaroundtheconceptofparticipationinaneffortto
move that conversation forward. I begin with an exploration of the concept of participation through its
roots in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and through academic discourse.
Building on this contextual background, I then discuss several concerns raised within the literature to
provide a nuanced account of the assumed benefits of participation. This scholarship helps us think
beyondparticipationasagoalinitselfandintonewrealmsofworkingwithchildrenandyouthaspolitical
agents.
2 Participation in Context
Many researchers and development practitioners who work with children acknowledge that the 1989
UnitedNationsConventionontheRightsoftheChild(UNCRC)markedaparadigmshiftinhowchildren
and young people are understood: this was a watershed moment in which children were given expressly
human rights. Throughout the world, the UNCRC has been the driving force behind the creation and
managementofmanyyouth-relatedpoliciesandis,arguably,thefoundationofparticipationinitiativesin
development andresearch projects. In42Articles, theConvention outlinedthree primarytypesofrights
that all children are entitled to “without discrimination”: survival and development rights, protection
rights, and participation rights. Article 3 identifies the ground rule that the “best interests of the child”
mustbe“theprimaryconcerninmakingdecisionsthatmayaffectthem,”particularlyinmattersrelatedto
budgets,policies,andlaws(UNCRC).UnderArticle4,thosecountriesthathaveratifiedtheConvention
are required to take the child’s best interests into account when changing and/or implementing laws and
policies that will have a direct or indirect impact on children.
The rights related tochildren’sparticipation are embedded throughout theentire Convention (Skelton
2007), but Articles 12–17 most specifically address: respect for the views of the child; freedom of
expression; freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; freedom of association; right to privacy; and
access to information. Research and development projects concerning children’s participation tend to
refertoArticle12inparticular,respectfortheviewsofthechild,inwhich“childrenhavetherighttosay
whattheythinkshouldhappenandhavetheiropinionstakenintoaccount...ThisConventionencourages
adults to listen to the opinions of children and involve them in decision-making” (UNICEF 2014b). It is
this Article that most directly draws attention to children having a voice that is distinct from adults and
emphasizes the need for adults to listen. Article 12, thereby, is often identified as the foundation from
Page2of15
Politics,CitizenshipandRights
DOI10.1007/978-981-4585-94-1_1-1
#SpringerScience+BusinessMediaSingapore2015
whichparticipatoryprojectsbegin(Wyness2013a;Kallio2012a;ThomasandPercy-Smith2010;Skelton
2007).
TherightsgrantedtochildrenthroughtheUNCRCindeedshiftedtheparadigmfromviewingchildren
solely as objects of care and in need of protection, either by parents, schools, or governments, to one of
beingactiveparticipantsintheirlives.Theinclusionofchildren’svoices,particularlyindecision-making
processes,canarguablybeunderstoodasanefforttoencourageandpromotedemocracyandteachyoung
people how to engage in democratic processes. The Convention argues that there are long-term costs to
societyfornotfacilitatingchildren’sparticipation,whichwouldresultinasocietyofyoungadultsunable
to effectively engage as democratic (and arguably self-interested) citizens (Lansdown 2011).
While the UNCRC has undoubtedly shifted the legal terrain in which young people’s lives are
governed,theconceptofchildhoodwasalsoconcurrentlybeingproblematizedwithinthesocialsciences.
Itwasonlytowardthelastdecadeinthetwentiethcenturythatsocialscientistsbegantochallengethevery
taken-for-granted universalist ideas of childhood. These researchers, under the framework of the “new
socialstudiesofchildhood”(NSSC),arguedfortwoprimarytheoreticalprogressions:(a)thatchildhood
isasocialconstructionandvariesacrossspaceandtimeand(b)thatchildrenaresocialactorsintheirown
rightandthattheyberecognizedasbeings,notonlybecomings(HollowayandValentine2000;Jamesand
Prout 1997). Sociologists, anthropologists, and geographers worked in similar ways over the past two
decades to explore childhoods around the world to better understand the complications place, time, and
social-political-economicstructureshaveininfluencingthecreationofwhatweunderstandtobeatimein
life called “childhood.” While all adults share a commonality in being younger at one point, their
experiences of childhood have varied widely and therefore influence how we come to know childhood
today. The recognition of the multiplicities of childhood has been a primary driver in exploring new
techniques and methods for involving children in academic research projects.
TheeffortsmadebyyouthscholarsandthepoliciespromotedthroughtheUNCRChavetrulychanged
the way that children and young people are involved in research projects. One substantial change is that
today, researchers often refer to their research with children as opposed to their research on children
(James2007).Inaradicalshiftfrompreviousresearchwhichstudiedchildrenasresearchsubjects,today
manyresearchersattempttofindwaystoenablethechildrenthemselvestobepartoftheresearchdesign
and dissemination of results (e.g., Punch 2002).
However, despite the best intentions of researchers and development agents to work with children, to
listentotheirvoices,andtofindwaystoinvolvethemintheirprojects,thereislittlediscussionaboutthe
normativeassumptionsunderlyingparticipationprojectsandwhatthismeansforhowandwhywework
with children in the ways that we do (cf. Holland et al. 2010; Beazley et al. 2009). Such normative
assumptions implied and made visible through participatory discourses are that we need to listen to the
voices of children, that they have individual human rights that must be upheld and honored, and that
children, as beings, are important and need to be included in research. Each of these points has enabled
children’s participation in research to become normalized and legitimized. Likewise, children’s
researchers have made incredible strides in the international research community by promoting the
value of children as political agents, publicizing the variety of ways children participate in P/politics,
anddemonstratingthewaystheyareindeedpolitical(e.g.,Skelton2013;Kallio2012b;KallioandH€akli
2011; see also many of the chapters in this volume).
Despite these strides, Skelton argues “it is essential that there is a continual critical interrogation of
what [participation] means and whether its practice is beneficial or detrimental for the children involved
and children more generally” (2007, p. 169, emphasis added). It is also important to more critically
explore what is missing from participation projects, for example, do we have participation “right”? Are
there other ways to do participation in different settings, in different times, in different moments? Are
thereotherwaystounderstandchildrenandyoungpeople’spoliticswithouttheirparticipation,orasthey
Page3of15
Politics,CitizenshipandRights
DOI10.1007/978-981-4585-94-1_1-1
#SpringerScience+BusinessMediaSingapore2015
participate differently? Are these other methodologies and other perspectives equally valid and enlight-
eningastraditionalparticipatoryapproaches?Perhapssuchquestionshavenotbeencontinuallycritically
interrogated as Skelton advises, yet there is burgeoning critical scholarship that engages with similar
questions around participation and that helps us unpack its generic positive claims.
The remainder of this review highlights some of this scholarship in an effort to help us think more
critically about our research programs so that we can challenge ourselves to entertain creative, ethical,
diverse,andempoweringresearchmethodswiththechildrenandyouthwhosepoliticalagencyweaimto
better understand. It is important to specify that in no way does this chapter make an argument to revert
backtoatimewhenchildrenweremeanttobeseenandnotheard;rather,thischapterhopestohighlight
someimportantconversationsthataretakingplaceamongsocialscienceresearchersinanefforttohelpus
think of more innovative and exploratory research approaches to working with young people and their
politics.
3 What Is Participation?
Beforewemoveontolookatsomecritiquesofparticipation,itisnecessarytoprovideanoverviewofits
definitions. As discussed in the previous section, thinking of children as competent social actors was a
novelconceptasfewas25yearsago.Atthistime,researchersarguedofthevalueofincludingchildrenin
research, but as it was such a new area of research, the early years of research with children were more
empirically driven rather than theoretically complex (Ansell 2009; Vanderbeck 2008; Horton and Kraftl
2006).Perhapsthenoveltyofworkingwithchildrenandtheinherentpowerdimensionspresentbetween
child“subjects”andadult“researchers,”regardlessofhowinclusivethestudydesign,contributedtothe
anxiety of doing empirical research the “right” way. Whether more persuaded by the UNCRC or the
NSSC,oneofthemostchallenging conceptsresearchersstruggled tointerpret withinthisnewparadigm
of childhood was that of participation (Hart 2008). To help relieve this anxiety within the former and
specifically move the Convention forward, the UN published the essay Children’s Participation: From
Tokenism to Citizenship by Roger Hart (1992).
In this essay, Hart drew on Sherry Arnstein’s (1979) ladder metaphor used to describe citizen (adult)
participation. Hart modified Arnstein’s ladder to distinguish eight “levels” in which children can partic-
ipate in their communities. These levels include “nonparticipation” (e.g., manipulation, decoration, and
tokenism) and “degrees of participation” (e.g., assigned but informed, consulted and informed, adult-
initiated, child-initiated and child-directed, and child-initiated and shared decisions with adults) (Hart
2008).WhileHart’soriginalintentionwiththeessaywasto“stimulatedialogueonathemethatneededto
be addressed critically” (2008, p. 19), researchers within and beyond the academy adopted his ladder
metaphorasaprescriptivemodelforhowtoimplementandevaluatetheirwork(seealsoThomas2007).
AccordingtoHart’spersonalreflectionsontheimportoftheladdernearlytwodecadessinceitsinitial
publication(2008),hearguesthatthislackofcriticaldialogueresultedininaccurateinterpretationsofthe
ladder. He argues that the metaphor was adopted too literally by researchers and inaccurately suggests a
sequentialdevelopmenttochildren’sparticipation;thetoprungbecamethemostimportantlevelandthe
ultimategoalofanyresearchprojectwithchildren.Rather,theladderwasmeanttodrawattentiontothe
ways that children can participate and the different degrees to which adults and institutions enable or
preventtheirparticipation.Higherupontheladderimplieshigherdegreesofchildren’sagency,butHart
argues that the lower levels can also encourage children to participate in ways that may be more
comfortable. Hart believes that children do not always need to “perform” at these higher levels, but
knowing that these higher levels are available to them is of value to children not only in the research
projectbutalsointheirdailylives.DespiteHart’sattemptstobringattentiontothesenuancestohis1992
Page4of15
Politics,CitizenshipandRights
DOI10.1007/978-981-4585-94-1_1-1
#SpringerScience+BusinessMediaSingapore2015
essay, the ladder was a highly influential metaphor that many early researchers adopted and remains
relevant throughout research studies with children and youth today (Thomas 2007).
More broadly, the concept of participation was simultaneously receiving interrogation among social
and development geographers around the same time as Hart’s essay. Inspired by the “cultural turn” and
increasing attention to qualitative methodologies, geographers with interest and awareness of the multi-
plicity of people’s relationship to and with place and possibilities for social change turned toward
participatoryresearchmethodologies(PainandKindon2007).“Participatoryresearchdescribesafamily
of approaches wherein those conventionally ‘researched’ are directly involved in some or all stages of
research, from problem definition through to dissemination and action” (ibid, p. 2807). Participatory
research approaches aim to do more than observe; they aim to incite change, empowerment, and
possibilities. Participatory researchers also tend to focus on the relationship aspects of research projects,
building trust,andnegotiatingissuesofrepresentationwithresearch outputs(Cahill2007a).Rather than
simplyrecordinghowpeoplerelatetoplace,participatoryresearchfocusesonsocialaction(Cahill2007b;
Pain and Kindon 2007; Mitchell and Elwood, Counter-Mapping for Social Justice, this volume; Wong
“▶Theatre and Citizenship: Young People’s Participatory Spaces,” this volume).
An ideal participatory research project begins with the participants defining a problem in their
community that they want to resolve, and the researcher acts as a facilitator in helping the community
achieve their goal. This type of research project is often referred to as “participatory action research”
(PAR), although the distinction between PAR and participatory research is not always specified in the
literature. However, within current times of project funding timelines and institutional emphases on
academic outputs, such ideal participatory projects rarely come to fruition (Coombes et al. 2014).
Researcher motivations may be well intentioned, and effort to achieve more radical involvement with
research participantsshouldnotbeavoided,butitisimportant toacknowledgethat“ideal”participatory
projects are often difficult to achieve (ibid; Ansell et al. 2012).
Hart’sladder ofparticipation inits various guisesandparticipatorygeographiesarebothincorporated
intoresearchthroughoutchildren’sgeographies.Atthispoint,thereareagoodamountofresearchpapers
andbooksthataddressthecomplicated, messy,andunpredictability ofresearch withchildren,andsome
focus explicitly on particular research methodologies (e.g., Hadfield-Hill and Horton 2014; Ansell
etal.2012;GreeneandHogan2005;ChristensenandProut2002;Punch2002).Muchofthisscholarship,
however, insinuates that legitimate research projects are those that successfully incorporate children’s
participation,regardlessofhowthistermisdefinedorspecified.Thenextsectionofthischaptercritically
interrogates some of the predominant components of participatory research as a way to help us think of
childrenaspoliticalagentsbeyondthe(inadvertently)narrowandlineardefinitionsputforthbyHartand
the more emancipatory approaches within participatory geographies.
4 Problematizing Participation
4.1 The Child’s Voice
While there are a number of articles in the UNCRC that support children’s participation rights, Article
12isoftenheraldedasformingthebasisforhowtheconceptofchildren’sparticipationhasbeenadopted
(Wyness 2013b; Kallio 2012a; Thomas and Percy-Smith 2010; Skelton 2007). Article 12 was written in
two parts. Part one states that a child has the right to express his/her own views in accordance with their
levelofmaturityandage.Parttwostatesthatthischildshouldbegiventheopportunitytobeheard.Both
componentsofArticle12emphasizethepredominantwaytoparticipateisdiscursive:thechildhasaright
tospeakandadultshavearesponsibilitytolisten.Regardlessofthisratherlimitedwayofthinkingabout
participation, the “voice” has become one of the most significant dimensions of participatory research
Page5of15
Politics,CitizenshipandRights
DOI10.1007/978-981-4585-94-1_1-1
#SpringerScience+BusinessMediaSingapore2015
with children today (Kraftl 2013; Wyness 2013b; Kallio 2012a; Thomas and Percy-Smith 2010; James
2007).
Thefocusonthevoiceencompassesbothencouragingchildrentospeakorexpresstheirviewpointsin
comfortable and effective ways and also including their voice in how the research is presented to the
public.Becauseitisoftenakeyfactoringaugingthe“success”ofparticipatoryprojects,Wyness(2013b)
argues that the voice has become the “global standard,” a “powerful normative model,” by which all
projects are measured. In fact, researching with children so commonly includes attention to the child’s
voice that it is rare to find literature that does not specifically address this in some way or another.
However,afocusonthevoice,especiallyaboveallotheraspectsoftheresearchproject,raisesatleastfive
concerns that are worthy of interrogation.
Firstly, despite the researcher’s best efforts at being truly “participatory,” research projects are most
frequentlyadultdriven(Kallio2012a;MaloneandHartung2010;Thomas2007).Adultresearchersframe
the research project; they decide the research question. While there is ample room for children to
participate in the process of how the research proceeds, it is uncommon for children to truly begin a
research project on their own accord. Therefore, because the vast majority of research projects involve
children,butareledbyadults,thevoicesoftheresearchparticipantsareonlyusedtoaddressaspecificset
of research questions based on adult interpretations of both child participation and the problem the
research aims to investigate. Such inclusion of children’s voices has raised concerns that this form of
participation is merely tokenistic (Kraftl 2013; Kallio 2012a; Thomas and Percy-Smith 2010). Within
development projects in particular, some child participants have literally voiced their concerns that they
do not feel heard, despite being included and given space to speak (Thomas 2007; Wyness 2009).
A related concern is that the “voice” that is being nurtured in such participatory research projects is
reliant on particular versions of adult Western democratic citizenship (Wyness 2013b). The space where
this Western democratic citizenship more often is performed is on school grounds. Child participatory
research in schools tends to primarily serve as an educational program meant to instill children with the
tools and skills needed to engage in democratic participation as adults. Not only are these institutional
spacesdominatedbyadultsupervisionbuttheyalsoconstructahierarchicalnotionofpowerrelatedtoage
and “maturity” (ibid.). While suchresearch may be situated on the top rungs ofHart’sladder, it may not
necessarily nurture the empowering dimensions of participatory research aimed for by scholars such as
Pain, Kindon, Cahill, and others.
The student council is agood example of such aparticipatory research project with children: children
learn about campaigning, voting, and serving their constituents in elected positions. While citizenship-
type activities have incredible social, political, and educational value, relying on these kinds of partici-
patory frameworks in institutions that are meant to mimic adult institutions leaves little room for
alternative forms of education or more inclusive forms of democratic participation (Wall 2012; Thomas
2007). As researchers working in the Majority World point out, this narrow framework of democratic
participation needs to be expanded (Tisdall and Punch 2012). Likewise, in Western democratic locales,
the student council model potentially prevents young people from thinking of more progressive and
empowering ways to engage in adult mediated/constructed democratic spaces (Taft and Gordon 2013;
Wyness 2009).
Secondly,itisimportanttoacknowledgethatnotallvoicesareequal;certainchildrenareinvitedtothe
participatory table, other children are not. Whether this is in development projects or even academic
researchprojects,itisimportantthatweacknowledgethatnotallchildrenhavethesameagency(Wyness
2009; Vanderbeck 2007). Education, social capital, economic potential, family legacy, and a variety of
other mundane factors play an important role in determining whose voice is heard and how comfortable
thechildisinexpressingthisvoice.Incontrast,someresearchersaimto“listen”tounderprivilegedvoices
suchaschild“deviants”(Thomas2013;Brown2011),streetchildren(Herreraetal.2009;Beazley2002;
Page6of15
Politics,CitizenshipandRights
DOI10.1007/978-981-4585-94-1_1-1
#SpringerScience+BusinessMediaSingapore2015
Young and Barrett 2001), or children with mind/body differences (Kelly and Carson 2012; Pyer
et al. 2010; Holt 2004a; Skelton and Valentine 2003 and revised for this volume). However, it is more
common for research to privilege the able-bodied, articulate, mentally stable, and polite children.
Thirdly,the“voice”isnotsingular;rather,thereareamultitudeofvoicesinvolvedinresearchprojects.
Quarantining all young people as members of a category uncritically adopts one undifferentiated voice
devoid of class, culture, gender, race, ethnicity, or any other marker of difference. Rather than reflect on
specificchildren’sneedsandvoices,theeffectofasingularvoiceforchildrenhasthepotentialtofurther
disempower and silence those children who may not agree with the dominant narrative (James 2007).
Figuringoutawaytobothrepresentchildrenandalsoincorporatetheirdiversevoicesposeschallenges
to how we reflect on our findings and how we decide to produce our research outcomes. To suggest that
thereisauniversal“voice”forall“children”isnotonlyfictionalbutalsostemsfromadultperspectivesof
whatthechild’svoicecouldbeorshouldbe.Theseadultperspectivesof(often)youngresearchersbased
in the Global North are certainly informed by their own experiences of childhoods, although self-
retrospection or overt positionality based on our own childhoods is rare in academic literature (Hopkins
and Pain 2007; cf. Jones 2003; Philo 2003). Acknowledging these contentions raises questions of
“authenticity” and poses further challenges in regard to translation, interpretation, and mediation
(Spyrou 2011; James 2007).
Fourthly,whenthefocusisnearlyexclusivelyonthevoice,andtherightto“haveasay,”otherformsof
everydayparticipationcanbeoverlooked(ThomasandPercy-Smith2010;Percy-SmithandBurns2013;
Jupp2007).Childrenareactivelyinvolvedinavarietyofsocialprocesseseverydaythatcontributetothe
well-being of their lives, families, and communities. Bringing attention to these more mundane acts of
participationcanbearguablymoreimportanttounderstandingchildren’sengagementinpoliticsthatgoes
beyond the institutional and structural formats prevalent in participatory projects seeking children’s
“voice.” For example, Skelton (2007) reminds us that children serve as important agents in their
households as a source of joy, particularly in households where adults are overworked and underpaid.
Through the simple acts of laughing and playing, children participate in significantly increasing the
family’s general well-being, which can have repercussions for how the family engages in a variety of
political actions from the local/national scale to the scale of the body.
Developing research projects that aim to uncover these more everyday acts of participation is a
challenge within the dominant frameworks focused on more formal political processes. Children’s
researchershavetraditionallyturnedtoethnographicapproachesintheseinstances(Holt2004b).During
extensivelengthsoftimespentwithchildren,theseresearchersarebetterequippedtoobserveandanalyze
dailyactsofparticipationthatcontrasttomoreformalactsofparticipation. Recognizingtheseeveryday,
mundane practices enable children who are sidelined or silenced in formal practices the right to have a
voice in their own way. In these ways, ethnographic research tends to include participatory research
methodsandvaluesbyspecificallyemphasizingavenuestowardempowermentforthechildreninvolved
(Sharkey and Shields 2008; Holt 2004b; Katz 2004).
Kirsi Kallio (2012a) argues that methods aimed at promoting empowerment can also be achieved
through less participatory research approaches. She argues that virtual (semi-)public spaces such as chat
rooms, gaming worlds, and social media sites enable the researcher to observe how children themselves
areactive(andempowered)atrepresentingthemselvesandpresentingtheirviewsonparticularissuesof
interest(seealsoCollin2008;Harris2008).DrawingonKatz’swork(especially2004),shealsosuggests
situating historical childhoods in broader “sociocultural, politico-historical, and geo-economic” frame-
works. Situating such knowledge found in institutions such as the school, the nursery, or the maternity
clinic helps demonstrate a pluralistic understanding of children’s voices without specifically speaking
withthesechildren.Usingtheselessparticipatory researchmethodscanenablechildren’sdiversevoices
to be heard without our immediate intervention.
Page7of15
Politics,CitizenshipandRights
DOI10.1007/978-981-4585-94-1_1-1
#SpringerScience+BusinessMediaSingapore2015
Someresearchersaretakingupanotherapproachaimedatuncoveringthediversityofchildren’squieter
andembodiedwaysofcommunicatingratherthanstrictlyverbaldiscourse(cf.Kraftl2013).Inreflecting
on her experience working with teenagers in a participatory mapping project that was less than illumi-
nating,EleanorJupp(2007)encouragesustorecognizethatparticipatoryresearchprojectsdonotexpose
asingular form of local knowledge. Jupparguesthat it isimportant toacknowledge and pay attention to
embodied practices and experiences that contribute to their local knowledge production and feelings of
“empowerment”thatsomanyparticipatoryprojectsemphasize.Throughhelpingoutelderlypensioners,
socializingwithfriends,andevenremainingsilent,shearguesthatwhilethechildreninherstudymaynot
have participated in the ways that adults always wanted them to, they were still engaging in a variety of
embodied and “unspectacular” forms of politics and thereby participating (see also Laketa, “▶Youth
Identities and Geopolitical Contestations: The Case of Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina,” this volume).
Andlastly,despiteallofourbesteffortstoadequatelyandeffectivelyrepresentthevoicesofchildrenin
ourresearchprograms,mostoftenitisourresponsibilitytocommunicatetheresearchoutputs.Therefore,
it is the adult who does the interpreting process of what was said, how it was said, and, ultimately, the
intentbehindachild’svoice.Theadultliterallyinsertsthevoiceofthechildintotheirowninterpretation
oftheresearcheventsinordertomakeapoint(albeit,anacademicpoint).“Aswritersoftexts,itisadults
who retain control over which children’s voices are given prominence” and how these voices are
presented (James 2007, p. 265). While this raises concerns for how we convey our research findings in
general,thisisofparticularconcerninthecontextofchildresearchbecauseoftheemphasisoninserting
the voice above all else. It is common for research findings to present long quotations, including all the
“ums” and pauses, so that the voice of the child is prominent. However, we must remember that in our
interpretationofthechild’svoice,weblurtheboundariesbetweenourownvoiceandthevoiceofthechild
we are aiming to best represent.
4.2 The Individual Rights-Bearing Child
Granting human rights to children, asthe UNCRC effectivelydid in1989, has certainly improved many
children’s lives around the globe, specifically in regard to their health and well-being. In fact, nearly
25 years since the UNCRC went into effect, UNICEF celebrates achievements in children’s rights
including “declining infant mortality, rising school enrollments, and better opportunities for girls”
(UNICEF 2014a). Such successes were made possible through policy and discursive changes to how
childrenwerevalued.Asimportantsocialactorsintheirownright,childrenmatter.Keepingthemhealthy,
well fed, and free from disease, promoting safe learning environments, and recognizing that patriarchal
normsresultinstarkinequalitiesareanincrediblesuccessfortheinternationalcommunityandformany
children’s lives near and far.
Andyet,thefocusontheindividualrights-bearingchildhasbeencriticizedasde-emphasizingtheneed
for more involvement beyond the child (Hopkins and Pain 2007; Wyness 2013a). As previously
mentioned,regardlessofthewaysthatchildrenandyoungpeopleareinvolvedinparticipationpractices,
thereremainsamatrixofpowerthatexistsbeyondparticipationprojectsinwhichthey,ineffect,havevery
little power.Byfocusing onthe individual rights ofthechild, it cangive afalse senseoftheempowered
childandtherolethisempoweredchildistohaveincreatingthehealthy,sustainable,safeenvironmentin
whichtheyaretoflourish.Adultscaneffectivelybeletoffthehookunderthisparadigm,despitethefact
that in many ways, they remain the gatekeepers to a child’s productive future.
Mannion(2007)providesaprovocativecritiqueofthediscourseoftherights-bearingchild.Heargues
thattobetterunderstandchildren’slives,weneedtobetterunderstandadult-childrelations(seealsoMillei
and Imre, “▶‘Down the Toilet’: Spatial Politics and Young Children’s Participation,” this volume). He
arguesthatratherthanonlyresearchingchildren’slivesasindependentfromadults,researchneedstopay
betterattentiontothespatialcontextswhere participation research takesplaceasthesespacesareshared
Page8of15
Politics,CitizenshipandRights
DOI10.1007/978-981-4585-94-1_1-1
#SpringerScience+BusinessMediaSingapore2015
byadultsandchildrenandareimportantcomponentstotheproductionofthe“culturesofchildhoodand
adulthood.” The child-adult spaces of where daily participation occurs can help illuminate how
intergenerational dialogue, learning, and identity formation contribute to the outcomes and insights of
children’s participation research (see also Hopkins et al. 2011). Children do not participate in a vacuum
devoid of adult intervention. Rather, children’s attitudes, empowerment, and level of engagement are
deeplyrelatedtotheattitudes,empowerment,andlevelofengagementoftheadultsintimatelyinvolvedin
their lives, as well as those far removed.
Similarly, Wyness (2013a) argues that in an effort to privilege the voice of the rights-bearing child,
child researchers have the tendency to quarantine adults to the sidelines of participatory projects in an
efforttouncoverthemythical“authentic”participatingchild.Thisisproblematicbecauseintheeffortto
silence adults, amore “authentic” participating child is not necessarily gained. Wyness encourages us to
challenge the UNCRC rights-based discourse and the ensuring participatory research methods which
privilege individualism, self-reliance, and autonomy. Rather, we should begin to think about the inter-
connectednessofchildren’sparticipationassocialandperformedcollectivelynotonlywithotherchildren
butalso(andsignificantly)withadults.Thisinturnnotonlyopensupnewwaysofthinkingaboutpolitical
participationwithinchildhoodbutalsohasthepotentialtoinformhowwethinkofpoliticalparticipation
within adulthood.
Moregenerally,therights-baseddiscoursefailstoacknowledgethesignificant rolerelationships have
inchildren’slives.Unlikeadultswhonotonlyhavemoreautonomouspoweroverchildren,theyalsoare
freetospendmoreoftheirtimeasautonomousindividuals,makingdecisionsonadailybasisontheirown
accord.Whilefeministscholarschallengethemythicalself-mademanfromaframeworkofcarepolitics
(e.g.,Tronto1993),whicharguesthatpeoplearebothinterdependent anddependentonotherpeoplefor
their livelihoods, adults have more inherent freedoms to be independent. Children, on the other hand,
spend the majority of their time in social caring relationships, whether those being at school or in the
home.Thesecaringrelationships,inwhichtheyareboththerecipientsandtheproviders,emphasizehow
significant relationships are to children’s political participation. For example, in my own work with
children in New Zealand, I have highlighted how children’s sense of environmental politics is deeply
rooted in an ethic of care (2012) and that these caring relationships develop and are supported through
their friendship networks (2013). Skelton (2007) raises similar concerns with children in the Majority
World,demonstratinghowchildrenarekeyplayersinthehealthandwell-beingofthehouseholdthrough
bringing joy and laughter into the lives of hard working families. Alternatively, Thomas (2008) demon-
stratesthatnotonlycaringbutalsouncaringpracticesinfluencehowteenagegirlsparticipateinthespaces
oftheschoolandsitesoftheireducationallearning.Thesebriefexamplesdemonstratehowrelationships
of care influence children’s political participation and challenge the prevalence of the individual auton-
omous political subject.
Finally,participationdiscoursesthatstresstheimportanceoftheindividualrights-bearingchildtendto
overlookboththevalueandsignificanceofrelationshipsinthelivesofchildrenandalsothepossibilities
for participating beyond the traditional autonomous frameworks. As mentioned in the previous section,
becauseadultsaretypicallytheleadersoftheresearchprojectsinwhichchildrenparticipate,childrenare
partial to adults’ goals of the participation project. Under the guidance of adult involvement in child
participation research, certain rights are deemed less important than others (Thomas and Percy-Smith
2010). For example, freedom of expression (Article 13); freedom of thought, conscience and religion
(Article 14); and freedom of association (Article 15) are rarely targets of participatory research projects
(cf. Hopkins et al. 2011). The oversight of certain rights in our research challenges us to think about
participation for what (Kallio 2012a; Mannion 2010). Participation in traditional projects teaches, and
arguablyreinforces,thevalueoftheindividualchild-andadult-drivenvisionsforchildren’s(democratic)
Page9of15
Politics,CitizenshipandRights
DOI10.1007/978-981-4585-94-1_1-1
#SpringerScience+BusinessMediaSingapore2015
future, but focuses less on the role of collective participation in addressing the power structures that
prevent young people from having a more profound impact in social change.
4.3 The Child as Being
The paradigm shift brought about by both the UNCRC and the social sciences of childhood strongly
emphasizesthevalueofchildrenasbeings;childrenmatterrightnow,theyarevalidandimportantsocial
actors, and their lives are worthy of academic attention and inquiry. Prior to the focus on children’s
“beingness,”thepsychologicaldevelopmentdiscoursewaspredominant,whichemphasizedchildhoodas
a state of “becoming.” In this state of becoming, children were seen as objects to be studied; their lives
were less significant in the moment of childhood than what their lives were to become in adulthood.
However, the shift to view children’s state of being has perhaps shifted the focus too far from the
inevitablefactthattheyareindeedmovingthroughchildhood,simultaneouslybeing,andalsobecoming
(Hopkins et al. 2011; Uprichard 2008; Kesby 2007). Focusing on children’s becoming nature is less
fashionable atthemoment, but Ibelieve it shouldnot beoverlookedforatleastthree important reasons:
childhood is temporary, age is relational, and aging leads to new and multiple beings and becomings.
I explore each of these problematics below.
Throughout this chapter, I refer to “children’s” participation, which, like the “voice,” ignores the
diversityofchildrenparticipating atvarioustimes intheirlives.TheUNCRCdefinitionofthe“child”is
anyoneupto18yearsoldunlessthecountryspecifiesotherwise.However,itwouldbefoolishtoassume
that the needs, expectations, skills, and “voice” of an 18-year-old are congruent to those of a 5-year-old
(Woodhead2010).Itisalsoimportanttoacknowledgethatthesechildrenandtheircontextualexperiences
ofchildhoodaretemporaryandchangeduetotheirownagingprocessandthesocial-cultural-economic-
political conditions they experience.
Bothexcitingandintimidating,thisurgesustorememberthattheconceptofageistemporary.Weare
all aging with every passing second that goes by; acknowledging temporality requires an honest look at
impermanence. In terms of conducting participatory research with children, acknowledging imperma-
nence requires the adult researcher to honor the child’s aging process. Uprichard (2008) argues that
understandingboththebeingandthebecomingdimensionsofchildrenincreasestheagencythatthechild
hasintheworld;childrenarebothpresentandfutureagentsintheworldtheyinhabitandareintheprocess
of creating. By focusing participatory projects only on their state of being, researchers lose incredible
insights into possibilities for social change and avenues for political participation in the near and distant
future. Children participate as part of larger processes including their own development and the devel-
opment of politics.
In order to better understand this idea that children are both simultaneously beings and becomings,
some scholars are drawing attention to the concept of “relationality” (Hopkins and Pain 2007; see also
Vanderbeck2007;VanderbeckandWorth2014).Ratherthanstrictlylookingat“children’sgeographies,”
these authors argue that age and lifecourse stages are socially constructed categories resulting from
interactionsbetweenpeople,space,andplace.Afocusonrelationalitymovesawayfromastrictfocuson
thechildasbeingtothechildaspartofanetworkofrelationships.Suchanapproach“tendstofocusmore
widely on families, generations and interactions, and situates people of particular ‘ages’ within these
contexts” (Hopkins and Pain 2007, p. 288).
Drawing on this relational approach, Worth (2009) stresses thesignificanceoftemporality to notonly
our understanding of childhood, but how people transition through childhood. Focusing on transitions
embraces the ways that young people are both beings and also becomings, allowing us to consider the
multiplebecomingsthatweencounterthroughoutthelifecourse.Inherresearch,itisclearthattheyoung
people Worth worked with were very much aware of and concerned about their future and anticipated
adulthood.Ratherthanignorethisandonlyfocusontheirparticipationasbeings,shebringsattentionto
Page10of15