Children as members of a community: Citizenship,participation and educational development – an introduction to the special issue

Citizenship and participation in the everyday life of children

The 25th anniversary of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) was marked in 2014. With 140 signatories, the UNCRC was devised on 20 November 1989, becoming effective in September of the following year, after ratification. With currently 194 countries being party to it (including every member of the United Nations except Somalia, South Sudan and the USA), the UNCRC is, itself, the product of a series of related children’s rights proclamations drafted by the founder of Save the Children, Eglantyne Jebb, in 1923, known as the Declaration of the Rights of the Child. In its present form, the UNCRC (United Nations, 1989) consists of 54 Articles pertaining to child-specific needs and rights, including the right to life, to a name and an identity, to be raised within a family or cultural grouping, and to participate fully in family, cultural and social life.

Explicitly, the child’s right to participation, in its many forms, is acknowledged in Article 23 (where it is stated that children with disabilities should be awarded conditions that facilitate their active participation in the community) and Article 31 (which recognizes the child’s right to participate freely and fully in the cultural and artistic life of their community). Other Articles are, however, equally relevant to understanding the concept of participation that is at stake in this document – namely, Articles 12–15, which generally acknowledge the child’s ability to form their own views, as well as the right to express them freely, to be heard and to have their views acted on when appropriate (freedom of speech, freedom of thought and freedom of association). Article 12, for example, clearly states that the views of children should especially be taken into consideration in matters directly pertaining to them – i.e. that children are to be seen as experts in their own issues, as opposed to certain forms of ‘adultcentrism’ that preclude this.

In an effort to clarify the rights of the citizens of the European Union, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union became legally binding for European Union institutions and national governments in 2010 (European Parliament, 2010). This document consolidates, among others, recommendations relating to child labour, the legal, economic and social protection of families, and the right to education, as well as the notion that children’s views shall be taken into consideration on matters which concern them in accordance with their age and maturity.

In February 2011, in a communication to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, and the Committee of the Regions, the European Commission established ‘An EU agenda for the rights of the child’ (European Commission, 2011). Among other aspects, this document draws attention to the vulnerability of children in online contexts, where many young people find platforms for engagement in public debate, supporting a strategy of empowerment and promotion of participation as a means of preventing online violence. Again, the goal of securing the participation of children in the development and implementation of actions and policies that directly affect them (such as education, health and environmental issues) is made explicit.

The acknowledgement of children’s right to participate is indelibly connected not only to an acknowledgement of their ability and willingness to do so, but also to their recognition as actors in their own right – authors of their own social and cultural actions, whether through play and/or their language(s) and forms of self- and hetero-governance. Acknowledging children as citizens involves not only a recognition of the ways in which they conform to more or less standardized ways of relating to the world, of participating at the civic and political level and consuming cultural products, on the one hand, but also, on the other, recognizing their innovations, their creativity and even their negation – or subversion – of traditional models of participation and citizenship. The legitimacy of their status necessarily means a change in the scope of the concept of citizen participation, so as to integrate children’s behaviours and attitudes, and validate their perceptions about the functioning of communities.

Decision-making is, of course, only one of several forms of participating that children (and citizens in general) have; for many, this will be their first experience of involvement in community dynamics. In their discussion about the participation of children in democratic processes in kindergarten, Danner and Jonyniene (2012) typify its forms: participation in the decision about the subject and execution of projects; open participation in formal or informal meetings/gatherings; and representation in a parliament or assembly of children. According to the authors, such experiences, at a young age, have an educational purpose insofar as children are given the opportunity to learn about rights and duties through their empirical exercise. Through such practice, children come to understand the limits to their freedom, as citizens, through an awareness of the effects of their own actions in relation to their peers. However, such forms of participation mostly conform to a logic of consultation in accordance with adult-established agendas. As Taylor and Percy-Smith (2008: 381) observe: ‘whilst “having a say” is important, it constitutes only a part of the participatory process’.

This is, in fact, one of the main dilemmas regarding children’s participation. One of the main criticisms made by those who discuss the widespread legitimation of programmes and policies via an appeal to a rhetoric of ‘voice’ (I’Anson, 2013) is that this can amount to little more than a populist gesture, bringing in its trail instrumental and passive models of participation, such as representation and consultation. There is, in other words, a clear gulf that separates inquiring into children’s opinions from actually engaging these actors in the process of responding to the issues they raise.

However, as Taylor and Percy-Smith (2008) highlight, the problematic aspect may lie deeper still, since the consultation process is, itself, biased in its very formulation. Both the inquiry of children into issues defined as relevant by an adult-driven agenda and its structure privilege standardized forms of agency, while neglecting young people’s propensity for ‘social action, social movements and … sporadic and short term’ activities (Taylor and Percy-Smith, 2008: 381). Likewise, the focus on change and outcomes blocks an understanding of the participatory aspects that are already present in children’s actions and contexts. The very act of urging children to take part in programmes – designed by adults to facilitate their participation – in this way unwittingly sends a message that the forms of participation that children autonomously choose are in various ways invalid, immature and unsophisticated.

Listening to children, providing them with platforms that enable their voices to be heard in a safe and nurturing environment, is merely one step, and one, moreover, that many groups and communities have already moved beyond. Nonetheless, development – within both communities and individuals themselves – can only arise from intergenerational dialogue (not only listening to what children say, but also responding to them) and equality – i.e. from welcoming children’s voices into formal arenas and decision-making bodies (Mannion, 2012).

Other dilemmas pertaining to the issue of children’s participation have to do with temporality, such as how quickly it is possible, in practice, to respond to the issues raised by children. Secondly, there is an issue regarding the management of the expectations of all those involved in the process; this includes, for example, how effective responses are perceived to be by children, decision-makers, families and their communities. Irrespective of one’s own particular institutional location within this process, children’s participation inevitably gives rise to deep emotional investment. As Alparone and Rissotto (2001: 426) point out: ‘just as the citizens and the children themselves may have over-optimistic expectations concerning the administration, so the latter may over-estimate the children’s real capacity’ for, and interest in, contributing.

Children in the community and the community of children

If the issue of children’s participation is fraught with dilemmas and subtleties, the same is true for community dynamics and for the legitimacy of communities in the overall governing structure. Community actors are often marginalized, either for not ‘speaking the language’ of the decision-makers or for not abiding by national and/or global agendas. As Taylor and Percy-Smith (2008: 385) emphasize: ‘formal participation opportunities often demand “expert citizens” with the skills, resources and an ability to think strategically that takes time to develop’.

If it is true that ensuring the participation of children does not immediately guarantee better outcomes to the decision-making process, it is also true that the engagement of community figures does not necessarily result in greater social justice and more effective development. At any rate, while there is no direct proportionality and there may be no immediate (and profitable) outcomes, there is an inherent social capital in relationships and networks that is, without doubt, the cornerstone for sustainable development. In this ‘bottom-up’ approach, diversity and creativity emerge as the main resources: children are both authors of their own narratives, those of the communities they are part of (Harris and Manatakis, 2013), and agents of development in a broad sense, which includes their physical surroundings and the social, cultural and discursive spaces within which they move (Danner and Jonyniene, 2012).

Participation and development

One important aspect of place-based educational approaches, including children’s participation, has been the idea of the child not only as a parameter for assessing the quality of life within communities, but also as a starting point for more inclusive actions and projects (Alparone and Rissotto, 2001; Tonucci, 2004, 2005; Tonucci and Rissotto, 2001). This means that much can be inferred from the presence (or absence) of children in everyday or ad hoc dynamics and initiatives within a community’s life. If children do not participate, either because they are not invited or because they or their families feel it is unsafe to do so, or because they are purposefully kept at bay from decision-making processes, something is seen to be not working properly. One of the basic premises informing The City of Children initiative (Tonucci, 2004) is that a child’s viewpoint is taken to be more inclusive than that of an adult, so that if one is looking at the city (or, for that matter, a community or a certain phenomenon) from the standpoint of a child, one is more likely to perceive issues and relations in a more inclusive way. An upshot of this way of proceeding is that pressing issues such as the right to leisure, mobility and autonomy, etc., whether this is with a view to devising or restoring a space or a service, can benefit widely from the inclusion of children’s perceptions and their creative – and sometimes ideologically disruptive – potential. As Tonucci and Rissotto (2001: 414) point out, with such approaches, ‘the aim is to collect the children’s needs and, together with them, to interpret the community’s requirements, to obtain from them ideas and proposals for the restructuring’.

Cross-cutting at legislative, agenda-setting and academic levels is the issue of development: participation is a condition – or at least a mechanism – for development, both for the individual and for communities. Access to positive, healthy and safe participation experiences potentiates autonomy, the rise of a sense of identity and an overall perception of competence; it leads, at a community level, to better ways of functioning (Alparone and Rissotto, 2001; Taylor and Percy-Smith, 2008; Tonucci, 2005). According to Bruyere (2010: 207), children with successful developmental trajectories tend to ‘display leadership, help others … value diversity … they develop into citizens who contribute to self, family, community, and society’.

The promise of participation is somewhat dependent on more or less explicit educational actions: ‘contemporary exhortations about the importance of citizenship … impress on those who are not already “on message” the importance of mutual obligations, civic values, and respect for the rule of law’ (Hall et al., 2000: 462). This idea of educating for citizenship and participation, as we have already suggested, is fairly controversial in itself, as it brings with it an issue not only of access to information (for individuals and for communities), but also of ‘fostering … a range of attitudes, dispositions and values’ (Hall et al., 2000: 462). This, in turn, leads to a series of evaluative judgements that convey what are deemed to be ‘good’ (desired and promoted) and ‘bad’ (frowned upon or ruled out of court) ways of participating.

The idea of more active forms of citizenship – active participation – has been on the rise over the past decades, and particularly in the face of social movements emerging from the global socio-economic crisis after 2008. This pertains to a perceived need to move beyond approaches based on rights and duties, to having people realize their membership of a community through direct engagement in response to communal affairs. Aspects of immediacy and relevance are, in a way, mitigated (since the results are faster and likely to be more effective), but this also comes at a price: a certain abnegation of responsibility on the part of national and global governments as regards community issues (Hall et al., 2000).

The contributions

This special issue is concerned with the comparison and discussion of multi- and transnational perspectives about the issues of children/young people as citizens, members of communities and actors in their own right, and in their communities’ educational and social development processes. As such, this collection of articles responds to a growing trend to address such issues not only within educational research more generally, but also within the European Educational Research Journal and the European Conference on Educational Research.

In the past, this journal has featured articles and issued special numbers which fit with some of the concerns that we wish to foreground in this special issue. In 2002, the journal issued a number pertaining to the relationship between learners and their learning/working environments, featuring contributions about student voices (Papatheodorou, 2002) and youth citizenship (Evans, 2002). In 2003, there was a special issue on ‘Civic education’ (see Menezes, 2003), edited with the purpose of highlighting and discussing data collected within the context of the Civic Education Study promoted by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. In 2005, a special issue on ‘Young people, rights and social exclusion’ featured data about youth at risk of exclusion and their social re-engagement (see Zay, 2005). Finally, in 2011, with its issue on ‘Bottom-up approaches to agency in education’, the European Educational Research Journal fostered discussion around ethnographic research approaches to children as social agents, with a particular focus on their roles as students (see Mick, 2011).

Even if the themes of children’s participation and education for citizenship have not been entirely absent from the discussion provided by previous issues of the journal, with this special issue we would like to promote discussion about not only what is taking place in schools (and within schools as organizations which are part of a broader community), but also what is happening in children’s lives, featuring their own narratives about their roles as members of families, youth organizations, neighbourhoods, etc., together with their views about institutions, utopias, the media, individual well-being, educational research, governance issues, etc.

The articles included in this special issue focus on one of two main areas of interest within the larger theme of ‘Children as members of a community’: (1) the community inside the school and the participation of children (offering insight into the school as a community in itself and as an organization which is, at the same time, part of a broader community) and (2) the community of children (offering insight into children as a group and, consequently, as a community, with a particular focus on informal and non-formal contexts and educational experiences).

The contributions are diverse in terms of their theoretical and epistemological frameworks, as well as their methodological approaches, but they all feature what the editors consider to be a positive balance between a (critical) theoretical discussion and the empirical data that they elaborate on. While the contexts from which they draw are broad, these studies also focus on children as complex and multifaceted actors, integrated and participating at various levels – and not exclusively as students, family members, inhabitants, etc.

In their contribution pertaining to an analysis of classroom-based participatory dynamics, Reetta Niemi, Kristiina Kumpulainen and Lasse Lipponen discuss children as co-authors in the pedagogical process. They also discuss the role of children in action-research processes, and the dilemmas of simultaneously acting as a teacher and a researcher. The article describes the ways in which an innovative ‘diamond-ranking’ methodology was mobilized, and how attending to the children’s own words thus produced provided insight into both the pedagogical process and the research process itself.

Rocío García-Carrión and Javier Díez-Palomar present a very thorough and important discussion about the Schools as Learning Communities initiative, recommended by the European Commission as an effective model to support school quality and development. As they focus on a specific type of Successful Educational Action (Interactive Groups), the authors navigate the philosophy and the process of implementing this strategy, discussing their results in light of the inclusion of children, their academic performance and socio-emotional development, and cohesion at the community level.

Focusing on the city and analysing children’s discourses and projects concerning urban contexts and dynamics, Joana Lúcio discusses focus groups as legitimizing participation tools. The article offers insight into children as a community, an aspect that is identifiable a priori (i.e. a set of children who have in common belonging to a more or less formal group), but one that also emerges as a ‘created’ commonality (i.e. defining themselves as a group in opposition to a more or less expected and/or identifiable Other). It is, therefore, a discussion about issues of power, agency and the relational aspect of the educational process.

From a multinational perspective, crossing data from Australia, England, New Zealand, Italy and Sweden, Jonathon Sargeant and Jenna Gillett-Swan bring to the table ‘what children would like adults to know’ about how they perceive themselves in interaction with the family and the community, as well as their place in the educational process and their concepts of well-being. In their analysis of children’s voices emerging from the latter’s response to open-ended written inquiries, the authors discuss issues of capacity/ability, empowerment, dissatisfaction and acknowledgement, and present recommendations that are useful in terms of teachers’ practices.

This special issue presents and discusses original research data concerning the status of children as community members, citizens and participants in decision-making processes, while also discussing the European guidelines regarding children’s participation and its developmental role at both the individual and community level. Through our analysis of these core documents in European policy and a state of the art that features mainly European authors, in this introduction we attempt to pave the way for a ‘European perspective’ on the issue of children as members of a community. We believe, however, that such a perspective is better established a posteriori: it emerges from the discussion provided by the articles hereby featured, and not from a preset framework of expectations about what is, or is not, consistent with ‘European concerns’ or ‘European ways of doing’ educational research.

At any rate, it is possible to identify, from the outset, some commonalities to these contributions and the research processes from which they originated. These allow us to transition from the simple concourse of multiple outlooks to an integrated view of how these issues are being addressed, and what impact they have on children’s daily lives and those of their communities. The articles featured in this special issue are essentially qualitative in their approach, while also seeking to move beyond a view of children as subjects, or spectators, in the research process, as well as in the decision-making processes within communities. There is also a focus on schools as part of wider communities (the neighbourhood, the city, etc.), as the learning process itself is discussed as something that spatio-temporally transcends the school. The innovative methodologies that are presented and discussed in these articles may also provide teachers and other childhood professionals with valuable insights, and possibly tools, for promoting richer learning experiences which integrate the local and global, the past and future, the individual and community, and profane and scholarly knowledge.

Linked with this growing emphasis on children’s participation and their role within the community is the emergence of a ‘new sociology of childhood’ (Nobel-Carr, 2006), as well as a more ecological approach to human development, wherein ‘internal assets … are [thought to be] best promoted through a child’s participation in healthy communities and families’ (Bruyere, 2010: 209). In this new approach, as Harris and Manatakis (2013: 69) point out, ‘children are seen to be key informants and experts on their own lives’, who ‘have the right and capability to contribute to decisions’ that affect them. This is, of course, not disconnected from the efforts, at the end of the 20th century, to systematize how children’s understanding of core political concepts and democratic functioning develops over time (Berti, 1988; Berti and Andriolo, 2001; Reay and Lucey, 2000; Woolley et al., 1999).

As we shift our focus towards not only the viewpoints, but also the voices of children in regard to how they perceive themselves and the groups of which they are a part, how they apprehend and elaborate on the history of their communities, and how they shape their surroundings and, ultimately, the future of their contexts, there is a certain aspect of resilience: resilient people, and resilient communities, are those who ‘can successfully manipulate their environment in order to isolate themselves from the negative consequences of harmful events’ (Tintor, 2013: 75). The articles in this special issue point to ways in which children are claiming new platforms for participation and civic engagement, as well as directing decision-makers’ eyes towards what they consider really matters.