Studying childhood,children,and their rights: The challenge of interdisciplinarity

Interdisciplinarity and complexity

One of the core arguments behind the call for an interdisciplinary approach to study objects such as childhood, children, and their rights is their inherent complexity. As Klein (2004) shows, the link between interdisciplinarity and complexity appears to be “evident” although “[c]omplexity is no less plural than interdisciplinarity” (p. 2). Clarifying the theoretical relation between these ideas has powerful implications and can improve interdisciplinary work. Based on the scholarly work conducted on complexity (see Darbellay, 2005; Klein, 2001, 2004; Morin and Le Moigne, 1999), these objects of research reflect most of the relevant features of a complex system. First, they are composed of several variables, in constant interaction. Childhood, for instance, can be regarded as a natural condition, a social construction, and a structural space. It is the interplay of these various components—more or less identical or different depending on the viewpoint—that provides a complex understanding of childhood. Therefore, the links between these components, and this is the second feature of a complex system, are dynamic, recursive, and non-linear. To address the child as a social actor requires considering the complex nexus of structure and agency, researchers thus have to go back and forth from sociology to social anthropology combining questions and methods (see James, 2010; James and James, 2008; James and Prout, 1997). This dynamic movement is an emergent process that leads to a co-production nexus and allows the creation of new meaning for the findings, for example, “childhood is socially constructed and […] children are active social agents in the construction of their own childhoods” (James, 2010: 486).

Third point, a complex system is not reduced to its components, as the famous saying goes, “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” The simplistic addition of our knowledge on the child’s psychological development to that on the process of socialization cannot offer a comprehensive understanding of how the child experiences his or her actual life while progressively moving toward adulthood (Alanen, 2014; Ryan, 2011; Thorne, 2007). Moreover, a hologrammatic principle reinforces the object’s complexity (Darbellay, 2005; Morin and Le Moigne, 1999). This principle highlights the fact that the part is not only in the whole, but also that the whole is in the part. As Nieuwenhuys (2008) writes, “limiting our understanding of children’s rights to legal codes, however widely endorsed, would severely limit, not increase, both children’s entitlements and our understanding of children’s subjectivity in the making of both culture and childhood” (p. 8). Structures configure Children’s rights as a whole, as much as Children’s rights are at play in structures. This leads us to the fourth distinctive trait: a complex system is an emerging one. It is a result of the interaction between its elements, throughout a co-constructive process. Unity and diversity can be though as complementary considered as the paradox of “unitas multiplex” (Morin and Piattelli-Palmarini, 1983: 194): thought as a whole, the system—childhood(s) or children’s rights—is one and homogeneous and seen in terms of its constituents—structures, relationships, processes, norms, and so on—it is diverse and heterogeneous.

The last feature that emphasizes the complexity of childhood, children, and their rights as objects of study lays within the interdependence of the observing subject and observed object (Darbellay, 2005). As in many other cases in social sciences, research devices are not neutral for the observed object, which should de facto be called subject. When working with children, the challenge is all the greater given that “adults have power over children in all known societies” (Boyden and Ennew, 1997: 9). The tremendous production of literature on research about and with children over the past decade is a strong indicator of this interdependence (e.g. Alderson, 2001; Christensen and James, 2008; Lundy and McEvoy, 2011; Melton et al., 2014; Spyrou, 2011); just about as much as “a key feature of the growth of childhood studies” according to James and James (2008: 27).

Identifying the complexity of childhood, children, and children’s rights underscores the need to combine various disciplinary perspectives to give full account of it and better reflect reality. ¹ Also, it shows that these objects of study can be subjects in their own right in numerous disciplines. Most importantly, clarifying the theoretical assumptions underpinning the need for interdisciplinary work on behalf of complexity is a means to aim toward “more self-conscious focus on the process of integration” (Klein, 2001: 54), which is a key aspect of disciplinary combinations and a way to overcome solely multidisciplinary approaches.

Interdisciplinarity and studies

Anyone who seeks dialogue, interaction, or eventually to break down barriers between disciplines is confronted to the profusion of terms that revolve around the idea of interdisciplinarity. Pluridisciplinarity, multidisciplinarity, polydisciplinarity, crossdisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, transdisciplinarity, postdisciplinarity, and so on, so many prefixes that reshape and transform the core concept of discipline. Without detailing definitions and currents of thought flowing from studies on interdisciplinarity as such, we will focus on three concepts that stand out in the literature: multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity, and transdisciplinarity (see Aboelela et al., 2007; Darbellay, 2015; Huutoniemi et al., 2010; Klein, 1990; Piaget, 1972). These concepts are structuring for the study of interconnections between disciplines for they show the progression between the different levels in complexity of disciplinary configurations. From multidisciplinarity to interdisciplinarity and then to transdisciplinarity, the semantic and epistemological dynamics are similar. These approaches are grounded into clearly identified disciplines, while at the same time nourished by their dynamic interactions and the dense network of relations which they form. It is in this dynamic that interdisciplinarity finds its particular significance. Between (inter-) the disciplines, such an approach outreaches their simple juxtaposition—as in the case of multidisciplinarity—and represents a stage in the progressive integration of disciplines, which is the purpose of a transdisciplinary perspective. ² Disciplinary divisions are thereby in reciprocal interaction and reconfigured throughout the dialogue between scientific cultures and the resolution of societal problems, and in this case, the concrete problems related to childhood, children, and the exercise of their rights.

This integration process and overflow of disciplinary boundaries are typical of multidisciplinary fields of studies—such as CS and CRS—which cannot be reduced to a disciplinary and paradigmatic vision of knowledge production (Darbellay, 2014). Therefore, Studies have intricate relations with the still massively disciplinary organization of the academic world. In this context, are CS and CRS genuinely innovative and creative realms of knowledge on institutional, conceptual, theoretical, and methodological levels or are they compelled to eventually adopt a disciplinary operating mode to survive? On the one hand, these fields call for inter- or even transdisciplinary cognitive openness to address the complexity of the issues they cover, which cannot be studied from one single disciplinary standpoint. On the other hand, the need to suit institutional requirements and conditions of academic socialization (paradigmatic structuring, publishing, networking, course of study, and research funding) puts them in a paradoxical tension, typical of fields of studies that take up the challenge of interdisciplinarity. The diversity of Studies raises the more general question of the tension between their aim to emancipate or to escape too narrow disciplinary anchors and the disciplinarization trend they face while having to make it through the disciplinary organized academia. This paradox does not necessarily have to be seen as an obstacle, rather as a richness providing scholars with the opportunity to think about new ways of organizing and producing knowledge.

This dialectic between the need to build upon and borrow from the multiple disciplines convoked in CS and CRS and the requirement to reorganize them within and in between each of these fields, according to internal and reciprocal logics, is constitutive of their respective evolutions. Also, it emphasizes the challenges these fields of studies face beyond the difficult task of producing interdisciplinary work/knowledge. The positioning of CS and CRS with respect to one another and more broadly in academia is therefore highly instructive.

Definitions of CS and CRS

Interestingly, definitions of CS and CRS proposed by scholars of the fields themselves are mutually inclusive. In their Key Concepts in Childhood Studies, James and James (2008) define the field of CS as “The interdisciplinary study of the early period of the human life-course that is legally recognized and socially (as well as, in part, scientifically) defined as childhood, as distinct from adulthood” (p. 25). Emerging from this short definition appears the idea of various disciplines contributing to the understanding of a commonly defined phenomenon in opposition to another (adulthood). The identification of the object of study of CS therefore requires a careful examination of what definitions of childhood are given in their core disciplines as well as in practices more generally; one of those being the legal definition of childhood. This inclusion of children’s rights in the attempt of defining CS also appears in the introduction of The Palgrave Handbook of Childhood Studies, in which Qvortrup et al. argue that one of the features of CS is to study children’s agency and voice. They (Qvortrup et al., 2009b) add,

It is interesting that the UNCRC [United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child] was formulated during the same period as the breakthrough in childhood studies, because this momentous document also granted children participatory potential and endowed them with participatory rights, even though they were restricted compared to those held by adults. (p. 5)

This historical convergence between the activities conducted in the field of CS and those carried out by the children’s rights movement is regularly underlined, as in the introduction of The Routledge International Handbook of Children’s Rights Studies (Reynaert et al., 2015; see also Alanen, 2010; Freeman, 1998, 2012). Although the historical developments of children’s rights and CRS cannot be summed up to a movement implementing in practice and policy ideas developed on an academic level (see notably Dekker, 2009; Hofstetter, 2012; Moody, 2014, 2016), it does seem that the new child image or new childhood paradigm, as referred to in the literature, is a point of encounter between CS and CRS.

Qvortrup et al. (2009b: 4–6) discern five characteristics of this new childhood paradigm, which could theoretically apply to both fields: (1) The study of “normal” childhood, in opposition to previous trends focusing mainly on children deviating from what was seen as desirable conditions or on children encountering problems; (2) A critique of the conventional socialization perspective, “to enhance the visibility of children here and now, […] and to understand, […] children and their life worlds in their own right” (Qvortrup et al., 2009b: 5); (3) Agency and voice for children, CS scholars aim to look into the prejudices children face being “reduced to vulnerable people to be protected” and therefore never considered as “participants in the larger social fabric” (Qvortrup et al., 2009b: 5); (4) Structural constraints on childhood, taking into account parameters such as economics, technology, urbanization, and so on to study childhood and also to compare how various contexts impact childhood; and (5) The use of ordinary social scientific methods to study children and childhood, rejecting the idea that studying children necessarily requires specific methods, allowing to overcome their “[conceptual incarceration] in a microworld […] of particularism” (Qvortrup et al., 2009b: 6).

A priori, children’s rights scholars do not disagree with these five points (e.g. Freeman, 1998, 2012; Mayall, 2000, 2015). It is however the way they conduct them that differs, challenging by so doing the paradigm, nourishing some CS internal critiques (see Prout, 2005, 2011; Tisdall and Punch, 2012) and encouraging researchers to reconsider some of its dimensions. One can identify three main axes where these differences are at play and where the two fields thus cross-fertilize. First, CRS are concerned by “normal” as well as vulnerable childhood and by how children’s rights apply in various contexts. While CRS have very broadly benefited from the urge to overcome the sole focus on “at-risk” children, progressively including equal human rights in addition to special protection provisions in legal documents (Hanson, 2012; Moody, 2016), the rights perspective leads researchers to admit that “different and even competing childhood images can coexist in one single person” (Desmet et al., 2015: 414). In a feedback loop, CS can build upon this understanding to overcome some criticized dichotomies—such as childhood versus childhoods (James, 2010)—and more specifically find greater coherence between the first and fourth characteristics of this paradigm (“normal” childhood and the impact of context). Second, CRS do not rely as heavily on Sociology and are therefore less crossed by the need to position themselves against previous dominant modes. The critique perspective is in this case aimed more specifically at overcoming top-down approaches of human and children’s rights (Hanson and Nieuwenhuys, 2012; Liebel, 2012; Pupavac, 2001; Reynaert et al., 2012). This focus invites CRS to examine the debate about the nature of children’s rights and how rights are given meaning depending on the context and by children themselves, considering structural as well as natural and other constraints, which is a path that has been called-on and followed by various scholars working in the field of CS over the last decade. For instance, when studying the incoherence between international standards in respect to children’s enrollment in armed conflicts and their own perspectives on the issue (e.g. Drumbl, 2012), it is scholars from CRS that contribute to problematize traditional socialization and developmental models. One can say that the problem-framing and -solving approach differ, while the findings are very similar. Finally, it can be added that CRS scholars claim and aim to build strong link with practices, relying quite intensively on participatory research methods:

The knowledge that this academic field should produce can make a fundamental contribution to obtaining insights in children’s rights-based practices and can give ground for further dialogue on these practices, with the aim to change these practices in the direction of a greater respect for the human dignity of children. (Reynaert et al., 2015: 11)

Interestingly, this impact-oriented ambition, while having to a certain extent weakened the field of CRS, by placing too much attention on implementation aspects (Hanson, 2014), could be one of the ways of overcoming James’ (2010) concerns about proliferation of data versus producing research contributing to the theoretical development of the field of CS (see also, Spyrou, 2017).

In sum, the main assumptions underlying these fields are relatively close, although variation and specificities can be observed. These slightly different positions highlight variations of perspectives around the objects of research, the disciplines involved to study them, and the way they are articulated.

Core disciplines, research objects, and integration

Although there is unity in the diversity of CS and CRS, their epistemological pluralism induces a marked diversity in some respects. The disciplines involved and the variation in disciplinary configurations induce important differences in the construction of hypotheses, research objects, and in the choice of methods. In both fields, one can observe a couple of core disciplines—from which the field originates to a large extent or which are inevitable for the study of the topic—and various related or connected disciplines—which have engaged with the topic in a rather systematic manner.

Scholars from and out CS or the so-called “new social studies of childhood” generally recognize Sociology and Anthropology as the core disciplines of the field, grounding the study of childhood as a social construct and the relationship between structure and children’s agency (“voices”; e.g. Alanen, 2010, 2011; Frønes, 1993; James and James, 2008; Mayall, 2000; Qvortrup, 2009). Many other disciplines are, however, considered as fundamental to understand childhood and the child as complex phenomena: History, Geography, Psychology, Social Policy, Law, Education, and Humanities among others. If Legal studies are of course central to the field of CRS, Psychology and Sociology are also considered as core disciplines, to scrutinize the meaning of children’s rights on individual and social levels. Since children’s rights cannot be reduced to rules, but are at play in processes, structures, and relations (Morrow and Pells, 2012; Reynaert et al., 2015), several other disciplines are convoked to broaden the understanding of children’s rights practices, the concepts of children’s rights, and children as bearers of human rights: these are notably Education, History, Anthropology, Social policy, Social work, Biology, and Medicine.

The description of these different disciplinary configurations in CS and CRS is neither exhaustive nor exclusive. It is not strictly accurate either depending on what national context and academic culture we focus on. Bühler-Niederberger (2010), for instance, shows that “although childhood sociology has always been internationally oriented, there is a variety of themes and approaches and different emphases placed on particular topics in the [ten] different countries” (p. 369; see also, Sirota, 2006). Variations also occur in a historical perspective, academics having tried to study the child as a whole before the emergence of these fields of studies—see, for instance, the progressive institutionalization of Paedology at the turn of the 20th century (Depaepe, 1997; Hofstetter, 2012) ³ —organizing hubs of knowledge in different manners. Moreover, CS and CRS have their own histories and evolve: the disciplines they convoke vary over time, which implies that their research objects and methods of investigation also change.

See, for instance, the illustrative example Alanen (2012) gives of the oblivion of developmental psychology “the oldest among ‘childhood disciplines’” (p. 419) by the Editor in Chief of Childhood in the 1993 Journal’s first issue. To emphasize the importance of considering childhood as a social construction (vs a natural and biological fact), CS scholars tended to exclude works providing from developmental psychologists, while founding the field. This situation has of course significantly evolved; psychology is now systematically referred to as a discipline connected to CS whether in scholarly work or in teaching programs (see Qvortrup, 2009; Thorne, 2007). ⁴ As regards CRS, scholars with a legal background also strongly oriented the way the field developed in a first place. Grounding their work on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and its application in various contexts, insights from connected disciplines were mainly ancillary. Children’s rights were therefore considered by some as those enshrined by international law exclusively, which was strongly criticized for failing to study the social, cultural, political, and practical meaning of children’s rights notably (Alanen, 2010; Quennerstedt, 2013; Quennerstedt and Quennerstedt, 2014; Reynaert et al., 2009). A so-called “critical turn” has recently been taken (see notably Hanson and Nieuwenhuys, 2012; Reynaert et al., 2012, 2015) leading scholars to set up goals in respect to the study of children’s rights as part of a wide societal and complex context, but also regarding interdisciplinary work.

Between relative autonomy, reciprocal contacts, and openness to dialogue, this dynamic tension between CS and CRS is replayed within the main endogenous publishing channels for each field of study. This is the case, for example, with the two leading academic journals in the fields: The International Journal of Children’s Rights (Brill) and Childhood (Sage). ⁵ On their respective websites, they describe their aims and scope: Their research objects are clearly identifiable, although an opening to the other field of study is systematically proposed or even expected. The International Journal of Children’s Rights states that it aims to “contribute to a greater understanding of children’s rights and their impact on the concept and development of childhood,” underlining the unavoidable links between the study of children’s rights and the childhood phenomenon and the need to convoke “the insights and methodologies of all relevant disciplines” in so doing ⁶ . Comparatively, Childhood announces that it “publishes theoretical and empirical articles, reviews and scholarly comments on children’s social relations and culture, with an emphasis on their rights and generational position in society,” ⁷ highlighting the importance of understanding how their rights impact their status. The inclusion of the other field’s research object is a shared strategic positioning; one of the Editor in Chief even writes “with some overlap of boards, the courses steered by the two [journals] have never threatened any collision” (Freeman, 2012: 29).

This prudent recognition of influenced areas and occasional overlapping is not strictly reproduced in each field’s respective handbook. Handbooks are crucial in positioning a field or a domain by proposing systematic states of the art and extensive references (Vickery, 2000). It is thus worth noting that an inclusion strategy is in this case adopted: the Editors give a specific and defined place—in inverse symmetry—to the other field of studies. The Palgrave Handbook of Childhood Studies (2009) includes two chapters devoted to the rights of the child, as an object of study, and The Routledge International Handbook of Children’s Rights Studies (2015), among the disciplinary perspectives convened, includes several chapters on the sociology of childhood or CS.

The positioning of each field in respect to one another varies: From exclusion to fusion, going through intermediary stages of recognition of overlapping and mutual or reciprocal inclusion, scholars adopt different strategies according to their scientific, publication, and institutional aims. CS and CRS remain distinct while creating bridges between their aims and scope (e.g. new paradigm of childhood), objects of study (childhood(s), children, and their rights), multidisciplinary configurations (core and connected disciplines), and publications channels. Since these fields have permeable boundaries, interdisciplinarity is also at stake in between them in what one could call inter-field interdisciplinarity. This macro form of interdisciplinarity avoids radical understandings of the relations between the two fields of studies. Indeed, by recognizing the internal and legitimate diversity of each field, this scientific dialogue maintains their relative autonomy, allowing to overcome basic strategies of inclusion of one field in the other or to tackle the issues raised by the sterile opposition between fields, disciplinary ways of thinking, or institutional structures (Darbellay, 2012). It is not a matter of merging or removing boundaries between these fields of studies, but rather identifying them at the outset, as well as the openings that exist or can be created and finally confronting different points of view by crossing theories, concepts, and methods. This confrontation, in a positive, respectful, and tolerant spirit, leads to an integration between disciplinary skills to deal with the complex analysis of childhood, children, and their rights, going beyond a mere juxtaposition of disciplinary contributions to explore possible hinge points, based on a win–win model.

Finally, if dialogue between disciplines is a necessary condition for interdisciplinary work, it is insufficient insofar as this type of work requires the decompartmentalization between disciplines and the articulation/integration of their contributions into a global and systemic understanding. By identifying on what points CS and CRS diverge and converge, we broaden the areas where fruitful dialogue is or can be established. Interdisciplinary work does in this case not depend only on collaborative dynamics between various specialists. Theoretical framework articulation, around shared definitions (e.g. agency) or federating concepts (e.g. wellbeing), methods transformation, complex models of understanding building and stakeholders involvement are as many ways of wandering along the interdisciplinary gradient from a gentle form of multidisciplinarity toward interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity. The degrees of interaction and integration between disciplines within and beyond each field of studies remind us that there is no interdisciplinarity as such but rather various forms of interdisciplinarity that take on their full significance in specific contexts, in particular fields and topics, and according to the configurations of the necessary disciplinary skills and actors–researchers involved.