Parallel lines? Childhood discourses emphasized by the children’s rights movement and the emerging field of children’s rights studies

Defining key terms

I concur with Diani (1992) who defines a social movement as “[networks] of informal interactions between a plurality of individuals, groups and/or organizations, engaged in political or cultural conflicts, on the basis of shared collective identities” (p. 1). This definition is distinct from other similar concepts such as coalitions, political parties, or protests and can be applied to a specific area of focus (Diani, 1992). In this case, I apply this understanding of social movement to the CRM.

I refer to the CRM to describe an international movement that encouraged the identification of children’s rights (Doek, 2009; Hanson, 2014; Ruck and Horn, 2008). The movement has been influenced largely by the CRC (Reynaert et al., 2009) and has focused on children’s struggle to attain their rights to provision, protection, and participation (Paré, 2017; Quennerstedt, 2010; Reynaert et al., 2009). The movement has also focused on the implementation and monitoring of children’s rights instruments such as the CRC with an advocacy and policy orientation (Ennew, 2000; Fass, 2011). ¹

In comparison, the concept of fields are defined as “[P]articular branches of study or spheres of activity or interest” (Casadevall and Fang, 2015) that create new knowledge as communities identify issues to investigate. I refer to CRS as a developing academic field of study that is rooted in an institutional approach that pertains to the area of children’s rights. CRS focuses on topics relevant to children’s rights research with particular emphasis on the CRC (Reynaert et al., 2009; Verhellen, 1998). In its aim to develop a critical perspective, the field has recently started to focus on “[the] framework of children’s rights as an object of study” (Reynaert et al., 2012: 165). I apply these understandings to differentiate the CRM and CRS.

Methodology and analytic approach

For the analysis, ² peer-reviewed literature was derived from two prevalent journals in the field of CRS and CS—The International Journal of Children’s Rights (IJCR) and Childhood; both which contain articles and scholars that explore the CRM. Scholarship was derived to discover some of the key childhood discourses emphasized by these approaches; the literature also focused on the distinction between the CRM and CRS. Founded in 1993, the IJCR has historically provided a strong international representation of childhood through disciplines including sociology, education, anthropology, law, psychology, social work, health, economics, history, and political theory (Freeman, 1998; Hanson, 2014) and thus, represents a rich standard for scholarship pertaining to children’s rights. Childhood was founded in 1993 and has highlighted the importance of exploring children’s lives within social and cultural contexts, which makes it a suitable site for selection as one of the leading journals in the field of CS. These journals were selected because they contain publications that point to the tension that Hanson (2014) highlights regarding CRS and the CRM.

For the selection of articles pertaining to the CRM and CRS, literature was chosen based on the following search terms: children’s rights, children’s rights movement, children’s rights studies, UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, evolving capacities, autonomy, children as rights-bearers, universal rights, protection rights, participation rights, implementation and monitoring. The search terms were selected based on a review of dozens of article abstracts that were scanned upon searching and revealed these key terms and their significance to the CRM and CRS. Initially, other search terms were included and winnowed down to include the above terms that were most relevant to the study’s aims. The selection criteria were then based on documents that were published in English. The analysis includes scholarship that ranged in date based on the search criteria results which were published in the IJCR from 1994 to 2017 and in Childhood from 1996 to 2019; an initial search yielded hundreds of references. References were selected if they contributed to discussions about childhood discourses emphasized by the CRM and CRS. In total, 24 documents met the search criteria from the IJCR and 20 from Childhood; they were selected for the analysis. ³

The emergence of the children’s rights movement

The 19th century marked the beginning of the CRM as policies and legislation began to develop for the first time in an attempt to protect and enhance the lives of children. After World War I and II, collateral damage had affected young people immensely which drew attention to the need for child protection measures and compulsory schooling (Cordero Arce, 2012; Marshall, 1999; Polonko and Lombardo, 2015). In 1919, the International Labor Organization abolished child labor to eliminate hazardous working conditions for children (Cordero Arce, 2012; Ennew, 2000; Fass, 2011), and by 1924, the League of Nations agreed to protect children’s rights under the Declaration of Geneva (Marshall, 1999). In early 1900, Ellen Key (1909) published The Century of the Child (Thorne, 2009: 19) which outlined the need to re-conceptualize understandings about childhood in the Westernized world. Ellen Key played a major role in the cutting-edge shift in thinking about children and the saving of childhood (Thorne, 2009). The role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) also increasingly began to protect the well-being of children (Cordero Arce, 2012; Fass, 2011; Polonko and Lombardo, 2015). Eglantyne Jebb in 1924 founded the International Save the Children Union. It became the first NGO to support young people after the war and developed the first draft of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child (Ennew, 2000). Although it never became part of international law, it highlighted the importance of protecting young people and established a basis for children’s rights (Doek, 2009; Fass, 2011; Marshall, 1999).

The development of human rights instruments supported the movement as they aimed to protect and promote children’s rights which helped to set the foundation for the rights of children (Ennew, 2000; Fass, 2011). For instance, in 1948, the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) served as the first time nation-states agreed to set out fundamental rights and freedoms for all human beings in international law (Cordero Arce, 2012; Ennew, 2000; Fass, 2011). The UDHR set the framework for human rights which led to the adoption of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child in 1959 (Ennew, 2000; Marshall, 1999). The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights stemmed from the UDHR and offered human beings the legal protection of human rights (Paré, 2017).

By the 1960s, activism for social issues, including women’s rights and civil rights began to surface (Fass, 2011; Marshall, 1999). The CRM was underscored by the women’s rights movement as it played a role in recognizing the rights of girls and children more broadly (Cordero Arce, 2012; Mayall, 2000). In the 1970s, the human rights agenda started to expand through a series of events: the 1975 Helsinki Accord, the 1979 International Year of the Child, the Women’s Movement from 1975 to 1995 (World Conferences held in Mexico City, Copenhagen, Nairobi, and Beijing) and the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (Ennew, 2000). The context out of which the CRM arose and the lead up to 1989 when state parties signed and ratified the CRC contributed to the legal push for children’s rights in which ideas about children’s rights materialized (Doek, 2009; Ennew, 2000; Fass, 2011; Melton, 2005; Paré, 2017; Reynaert et al., 2012). Various child and youth-led social movements also played a role. In the Global South, the African Movement of Working Children and Youth and the Latino-American Movement of Working Children and Adolescents (2000) contributed significantly to the development of the CRM (Manfred et al., 2001).

Although advocates, NGOs, lawyers, and government officials published reports about issues pertaining to children’s rights, this literature was deemed “grey literature” (Reynaert et al., 2009: 520). This literature has often focused on how to better the lives of children through advocacy efforts to enhance monitoring and implementation of the CRC with policy and legislative developments in child service delivery. Scholars suggested adding the word studies to make a distinction from the CRM: “By adding the word ‘studies’, the focus of research but also teaching activities related to children’s rights express the shift from advocacy and action towards understanding, analysing and explaining the positions in current children’s rights practices” (Hanson, 2014: 444). Researchers started to highlight the lack of critical reflection in the academy pertaining to children’s rights, suggesting that the field of CRS was not distinct from children’s rights policy and practice based on limited critical, contextual, and theoretical analyses (Quennerstedt, 2013; Reynaert et al., 2012; Vandenhole et al., 2015). Scholars have continued to emphasize the need to enhance epistemology and theory to develop the field of CRS (Reynaert et al., 2012; Vandenhole et al., 2015).

The emergence of children’s rights studies

The emerging field of CRS has continued to develop since the late 20th and beginning of the 21st century (Quennerstedt, 2013). Evolving theoretical frameworks, research aims, methods, and approaches to exploring children’s rights have contributed to a diverse body of knowledge that has been published within academic literature displayed in handbooks, journals, editorials (Moody and Darbellay, 2019; Quennerstedt, 2013), as well as conference proceedings. For instance, The Routledge Handbook of Children’s Rights Studies (Vandenhole et al., 2015) and, in particular, the Introduction: A Critical Approach to Children’s Rights (Reynaert et al., 2015) critically reflects on the development of the field. Notably, publications within Childhood (Alanen, 2010, 2012; Hanson, 2014; Moody and Darbellay, 2019; Poretti et al., 2013; Reynaert et al., 2009) and the IJCR (Cordero Arce, 2012; Quennerstedt, 2013; Reynaert et al., 2012) have contributed to the development of CRS (see also, Hanson and Nieuwenhuys, 2012). In fact, in 2013, Quennerstedt (2013) noted the rise in children’s rights research within the IJCR from 59 articles in 1990–1994 to 463 during 2005–2009. Numerous conferences have also been held internationally that focus on children’s rights. These developments have pointed to the need to further explore the emergence of CRS as a new academic field of study.

The emergence of academic programs focusing specifically on children’s rights has also contributed to the development of the field (Quennerstedt, 2013). Initially introduced in European universities, Master’s Degrees, Specialized Children’s Rights Programs, graduate and undergraduate courses in children’s rights, and Children’s Rights Specializations under Human Rights and CS have appeared. These developments highlight the legitimacy and emergence of the field of CRS. It is evident through children’s rights degree programs and literature that has been published about CRS that CRS stems largely from the legal studies discipline. The field of CRS has more recently become rooted in multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary approaches to understanding children’s rights and childhood (Alanen, 2012; Moody and Darbellay, 2019; Reynaert et al., 2015).

The main focus of children’s rights research initially centered on analyzing monitoring and implementation of the CRC (Quennerstedt, 2013; Reynaert et al., 2009, 2012). Reynaert et al. (2009) explain that children’s rights research has since rapidly evolved: “[That] the Web of Science holds almost 400 references explicitly referring to children’s rights, points to the fact that scholarly work on children’s rights has gained independence as a scientific field of study” (p. 520). The development of the field has led to enriched understandings of childhood that reach beyond perspectives arising from the CRM. While both approaches share similar interests surrounding children’s rights, including a desire to better the lives of children, both offer different ideas about childhood. Whereas a social movement may aim to empower social groups to challenge and change power imbalances to achieve equality (Diani, 1992), in this case, for the realization of children’s rights through advocacy and monitoring of implementation of children’s rights; the aim of an academic field of study is to critically explore different knowledges through research, theorizing, and critique (Casadevall and Fang, 2015). I highlight this distinction to explore Hanson’s (2014) call to begin to emancipate CRS from the CRM.

Discourses emphasized by the children’s rights movement

In order to understand and respond to Hanson’s (2014) call for the emancipation of CRS from the CRM, I highlight some of the primary childhood discourses emphasized by the CRM.

First, in an attempt to recognize the dangers associated with war, violence, hunger, homelessness, deprivation and displacement, advocates, NGOs, lawyers, and other child rights stakeholders involved in the CRM challenged discrimination against children in various contexts and especially within the home, work, school, and on the streets (Freeman, 1998; Hanson, 2017). This concept contributed to a new commitment to protecting children from adversity and injustice, abuse, neglect, trafficking, and harm while challenging the conceptualization of children as property (Collins, 2017; Cordero Arce, 2012; Reynaert et al., 2009). The discourse of the child in need of protection and children as vulnerable (Denov, 2004; Hanson, 2017; James, 2010; Marshall, 1999; Paré, 2003; Reynaert et al., 2009; Verhellen, 2000) emerged while new understandings about the social position of children, personhood, and children’s full right to humanity also surfaced (Jans, 2004).

Second, the CRM contributed to the argument around the concept of equal, universal rights (Alderson, 2012; Campell, 1994; Cockburn, 2005; Cordero Arce, 2012; Johnson, 2010; Josefsson, 2017; Leonard, 2007; McGillivray, 1994). The CRM conceptualized children’s rights as human rights that were to be applied to every individual child and has looked to individual children as sites of intervention. Through this understanding, the discourse of the child as an active subject with individual entitlements and participation rights began to emerge (Bosisio, 2012; Freeman, 2007; Hanson and Vandaele, 2003; Percy-Smith and Taylor, 2008; Reynaert et al., 2009; Wyness, 2013).

Third, the movement has highlighted the need to refigure power relations between children, adults, and the state. The re-figuring of power relations drew attention to the obligations of institutions, policies, and child service delivery systems to uphold the rights of children. The movement specifically contributed to the problematization of the concept of age (Freeman, 2007; Reynaert et al., 2009; Therborn, 1996; Vandenbroeck and Bouverne-De Bie, 2006; Wyness, 2013). Through this understanding, children began to be recognized as beings rather than becomings (Hanson, 2017). The CRM accepts this discourse at face value to move onto advocacy and policy rather than through conceptual questioning, which challenges the arrival of the discourse.

Fourth, the CRM contributed to an understanding of the rights-bearing individual child to highlight the importance of respecting children’s dignity, independence, capacity, participation, and autonomy (Cordero Arce, 2012; Jans, 2004; Reynaert et al., 2009; Such and Walker, 2005). This conceptualization was reflected in preventive rights-based services and policies that aspired to protect children and promote their right to participation.

While these understandings did not evolve solely from the CRM, it did play a significant role in emphasizing the discourses surrounding children and childhood (Reynaert et al., 2009) and has done so with a focus on policy, practice, implementation, and monitoring of the CRC. It is important to note that childhood discourses were also supported by the “new sociology of childhood” (Freeman, 1998; James et al., 2002; Mayall, 2000; Reynaert et al., 2009; Thorne, 2009; Vandenbroeck and Bouverne-De Bie, 2006) and CS as activities and research surrounding children and childhood unfolded at the same time the CRM developed (Alanen, 2010; Freeman, 1998; Moody and Darbellay, 2019; Qvortrup et al., 2009; Reynaert et al., 2015). Yet, the CRM and CS provide different perspectives about the child. For instance, CS recognizes the importance of context in relation to the child and the CRM recognizes the individual child as a legal entity of rights (Freeman, 1998). Whereas the CRM has had a significant impact on legislative changes and on young people speaking out about their views, CS has highlighted the social construction and plurality of childhood (Freeman, 1998). Among their differences, scholars have also highlighted ways in which these approaches often converge (Freeman, 1998; Hägglund and Thelander, 2011; Hanson, 2014; James et al., 1998; James and James, 2004; Moody and Darbellay, 2019; Qvortrup et al., 1994; Reynaert et al., 2015; Vandenbroeck and Bouverne-De Bie, 2006).

Discourses emphasized by children’s rights studies

I now highlight childhood discourses emphasized by CRS while keeping in mind Thorne’s (2007) observation about social movements and disciplinary fields: “Social movements sometimes generate compelling questions that reach across well-established disciplinary divides” (p. 147). This perspective recognizes that there may be similarities between childhood discourses stemming from the CRM and CRS, although the ways in which they are constructed, established, and perceived, vary.

First, whereas the CRM has particularly focused largely on advocating for the rights of vulnerable or at-risk groups of children including children on the move from natural disaster, conflict, and discrimination, as evidenced by NGOs such as Save the Children and their work on eliminating child suffering, CRS has focused more broadly on all social groups of children and on theoretical understandings of childhood (Desmet et al., 2015; Moody and Darbellay, 2019). Although it should be noted that CRS has also explored research pertaining to groups of children that are considered particularly vulnerable (Brunnberg and Visser-Schuurman, 2015; Denov, 2004; Grover, 2002; Henderson, 2013; Paré, 2003; Skyrme and Woods, 2018; Wihstutz, 2011; among others).

Second, CRS through the development of children’s rights research has focused largely on the CRC as a standard setting instrument. When researchers began to study children’s rights, there was a strong focus on the transition of child rights principles to various legal fields such as youth justice or family law (Hanson, 2014). Internationally, there has been a specific focus on the promotion and implementation of the CRC and how children’s rights are realized in practice along with monitoring systems that contribute to implementation and promotion (Bosisio, 2012; Brunnberg and Visser-Schuurman, 2015; Quennerstedt, 2013; Reynaert et al., 2009).

Third, there has been a particular focus in CRS, on children as rights holders and subject positions that can be unpacked analytically. This understanding has led to an emphasis on the dichotomous distinction between children’s rights and parental rights (Jans, 2004; Quennerstedt, 2010, 2011; Reynaert et al., 2009).

Fourth, children’s rights research within CRS has explored the concept of child competency and children’s right to participation through conceptual questions (Bosisio, 2012; Brunnberg and Visser-Schuurman, 2015; Jans, 2004; Reynaert et al., 2009; Wyness, 2013). These discourses have led to the understanding that children should be viewed as beings rather than becomings, which have developed alongside and emerged from CS and the social study of childhood (Freeman, 1998; James et al., 2002; Mayall, 2000; Reynaert et al., 2009; Thorne, 2009; Vandenbroeck and Bouverne-De Bie, 2006).

Fifth, CRS has contributed to theoretical understandings about how children’s rights and the CRC are applied in various environments and contexts (Bendo and Mitchell, 2017; Hanson, 2014; Mitchell, 2005; Mitchell and McCusker, 2008; Percy-Smith and Taylor, 2008; Reynaert et al., 2010; Vandenbroeck and Bouverne-De Bie, 2006) as opposed to mainly focusing on monitoring and implementation of the CRC (Marshall, 1999; Polonko and Lombardo, 2015; Quennerstedt, 2010; Reynaert et al., 2012) although researchers have focused on this important area as well (Ennew and Miljeteig, 1996; Polonko and Lombardo, 2015; Quennerstedt, 2011; Reynaert et al., 2009; Taylor et al., 2001; Woll, 2000).

Finally, while understandings about children’s rights that stem from the CRM have been propelled mainly by lawyers, advocates, activists, NGOs, and child rights stakeholders (Poretti et al., 2013), ideas stemming from CRS have largely been explored by scholars who have conducted children’s rights research (Moody and Darbellay, 2019; Quennerstedt, 2013; Reynaert et al., 2009; Verhellen, 1998) considering the academic motivation of CRS as a field of study.

Emancipation of children’s rights studies

In 1998, Michael Freeman (1998) argued that there had been little dialogue between the CRM and CS. He highlighted that this gulf was evident in the content published in Childhood and the IJCR as scholarship did not often converge or overlap, nor did the audiences reading each journal. Freeman (1998) identified that the CRM and CS should be in dialogue with one another considering the overlap in interests. The CRM and CS have since converged, as evidenced in the scholarship produced by both journals and with the emergence of CRS. In the same way, Freeman (1998) highlighted that the CRM and CS have much to offer one another, I contend that this holds true of the CRM and CRS. An analysis of the sources revealed that the CRM and CRS use the concepts of children and childhood in ways that are both distinct and at times overlap. Yet despite its recent critical turn (Moody and Darbellay, 2019; Reynaert et al., 2012, 2015), scholars have continued to call for further critical analysis of children’s rights in CRS in order to enrich the field (Alanen, 2010, 2012; Hanson, 2014; Quennerstedt, 2013; Reynaert et al., 2009, 2012).

To fulfill Hanson’s (2014) call to emancipate CRS from the CRM, I agree that CRS should deviate from its primary focus on advocacy, policy, and legal approaches to children’s rights in order to reach beyond and engage in reflexive critiques. Although CRS has started to adopt critical components that stem from interdisciplinary approaches to understanding childhood, I believe there are also other ways of emancipating CRS. In addition to interdisciplinary viewpoints, scholars might start to explore the potential of transdisciplinary approaches as a means to achieve critical reflexivity in CRS by adopting a problem-oriented approach (Choi and Pak, 2006), rather than a discipline-specific one.

Whereas interdisciplinarity has been defined as an approach that makes use of two or more academic disciplines, transdisciplinarity is defined as the integration of various disciplines to reach above and beyond disciplinary boundaries (Choi and Pak, 2006). Mathematically, Choi and Pak (2006: 359) compare interdisciplinarity to the equation of 2 + 2 = 5, a deviation from the mathematical combination, and transdisciplinarity to the equation of 2 + 2 = yellow, a different kind of outcome. Transdisciplinary research therefore differs from interdisciplinary research because it moves beyond the disciplinary culture of the academy to explore knowledge practices. Take, for example, research that aims to explore children’s right to protection from harm. An interdisciplinary approach may analyze the relationships between disciplines such as social work, sociology, legal studies, and others, in a coordinated approach to explore children’s protection rights. A transdisciplinary approach would integrate an interdisciplinary approach but also transcend these boundaries in a holistic and consistent manner across all dimensions. This approach would enable stakeholders from different disciplines as well as non-academic partners such as Indigenous partners, children and youth, policy makers, advocates, and others to reach a common aim through a shared framework where individuals leave behind their specific disciplinary perspectives to embrace a collective one through shared decision-making (see for instance, Mitchell, 2013; Mitchell and Moore, 2018). Adopting a transdisciplinary approach, individuals could critically reflect on and explore the consequences of children’s protection rights in practice and the contexts they are applied.

Rather than focusing on discipline-driven research on advocacy and policy within CRS, scholars could use a transdisciplinary approach to question the assumptions of existing theoretical discourses. This approach would enable the development of new theoretical standards for CRS and potentially explore the field as a discipline in its own right. Adopting this innovative approach would start to emancipate the current pigeon hole CRS finds itself in with its disciplinary focus on advocacy and policy. Women’s Studies has also taken a transdisciplinary approach to critically explore feminist theory (Sanford et al., 2015). This approach can free up space for CRS to ask and analyze the critical questions that Hanson (2014) advocates for from a holistic viewpoint that constitutes the reality of children’s rights.

Conclusion

The article has traced the historical emergence of the CRM and CRS as well as the childhood discourses each approach has emphasized to begin to respond to Hanson’s (2014) call for the emancipation of CRS from the CRM. The analysis highlights that the CRM and CRS both use the concepts of children and childhood in distinct ways. Whereas the CRM adopts an advocacy-oriented framework to promote and implement children’s rights, CRS is institutionally based and requires a more substantial critical perspective to understand and explore children’s rights in context and the implications in practice. I conclude by highlighting that the CRM and CRS do have much to offer one another, however, for CRS to develop and emancipate from the CRM, it should indeed expand beyond advocacy, policy, and legal understandings of children’s rights. I therefore extend Hanson’s (2014) call for the emancipation of CRS from the CRM and suggest that a potential way forward entails thinking about adopting a transdisciplinary approach in CRS to deepen spaces for discussion in the field.