Abstract
This qualitative research explored 9- to 12-year-old children’s citizenship participation at primary school in the Republic of Ireland. During 2016–2017, 160 children from 6 co-educational primary schools participated. Through a process of grounded analysis, children are identified as active citizen-peers of their peer groups. As citizen-peers, children used social strategies to assert their agency and autonomy within the adult-controlled school environment. Social bonding between children also influenced the ways citizen-peers negotiated peer group social hierarchies. Inductive analysis of observational data identifies children’s social strategies as covert and overt forms of Collective Social Action (CSA); motivated by competition and/or protest against the activities children did not want to participate in at school. This research found that low social bonding between children affects peer solidarity, which suggests that social bonding is an important aspect of children’s collaboration as citizen-peers at school.
Keywords
Conceptualising children as citizens-in-action as opposed to citizens-in-waiting
A central aspect of developing children’s participatory rights involves how we view younger children as citizens. Children’s potential to participate in social action within different social contexts (formal and informal) expands when they are conceptualised as citizens-in-action who have the right to participate in social action as opposed to latent citizens-in-waiting.
Tensions exist between adults’ facilitation of younger children’s democratic participation whilst maintaining their authority over what are appropriate/inappropriate activities for children to participate in. Therefore adults need to strike a balance between affording children’s participatory rights whilst keeping their safety and ‘best interests’ to the fore.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child serves as an international benchmark for the protection of children’s rights (Lundy, 2007; Wyness et al., 2004). However the Convention also illustrates tensions between competing values and practices in relation to western and non-western childhoods and upholding children’s interests and needs (Lundy, 2007; Wyness et al., 2004). Wyness et al. (2004) point out that the manner in which children are represented as citizens in such internationally acknowledged agreements reinforces powerful discourse about their best interests at local, national and global levels. Discourses that locate children as purely vulnerable beings firmly place the responsibility on adults to protect and provide for them. This social dynamic makes it difficult for adults to take children’s forms of political (and social) participation seriously (Kulynych, 2001; Rehfeld, 2011; Such and Walker, 2005; Theis, 2010; Wall, 2012; Wyness et al., 2004). Most democratic western and non-western countries validate this state of affairs because they continue to deny children under the age of 18 the right to vote. This situation ‘raises the biggest question over the status of children’s citizenship’ (Lister, 2007: 699).
To raise the status of children’s citizenship participation, adults need to be open to the view that children’s participation could constitute valuable ‘citizenship’ participation within different social contexts (Cohen, 2005; Larkins, 2014; Moosa-Mitha, 2005; Olsson, 2017). Feminist literatures (in particular) assert that we must look beyond traditional representations of citizenship, which can marginalise and disregard children’s forms of citizenship participation. Moosa-Mitha (2005) argues that in order to achieve children’s citizenship participatory rights, children need to be treated as ‘present’ and valued social actors. Feminist literatures also recognise that informal social and cultural activities (not just political) also affect citizens’ lives (Lister, 2007, 2008; Moosa-Mitha, 2005; Werbner and Yuval-Davis, 1999). Thus, the inclusion of citizens’ participation in social and cultural activities opens up more possibilities to explore forms of children’s citizenship participation within different social contexts.
Children’s citizenship participation
Several authors have explored children’s citizenship and they offer conceptualisations about what constitutes forms of children’s citizenship participation (Devine and Cockburn, 2018; Hart, 1992; Larkins, 2014; Lister, 2003, 2007, 2008; Lundy, 2007; Olsson, 2017). Research conducted by Olsson (2017) and Larkins (2014) take account of children’s subjective experiences of participation. For instance, Olsson (2017) examined children’s ‘claim for physical and symbolic space’, which she argues can be ‘understood as actions of lived citizenship’ (p. 545). She uses her concept of the ‘action zone’ to explore children’s daily citizenship practices (Olsson, 2017). Similarly, Larkins (2014) research about children’s agency as citizens asserts that their activities and (mis)behaviours can be considered as ‘acts of citizenship’. Larkins (2014) suggests that we need to focus on children’s everyday practices and on children’s interpretations of these to find out more about ‘the different citizenships children have and aspire to’ (p. 19). She makes the point that children’s forms of citizenship practices ‘enact citizenship of a different kind’, which still need to be valued nonetheless (Larkins, 2014).
‘Participation’ is not always perfect and dismissing imperfect attempts of facilitating children’s participation could risk closing off children’s access to engage in issues that affect them most (Lundy, 2018). By doing this we could inadvertently intimidate decision-makers from attempting to engage with children directly or even at all (Lundy, 2018). Notwithstanding, we need to remain cognisant of adult-centric worldviews about what is or is not appropriate in terms of children’s participation because adults and children can have different criterion of what ‘it means to participate’ within different social contexts (Malone and Hartung, 2010: 26–27). Looking at the social context of the school, it can be challenging for educators to develop children’s democratic participation as part of their citizenship education within paternalistic and authoritarian models of schooling practices. This challenge is compounded when educators are faced with teaching large class sizes within a tightly scheduled class timetable. In the Irish context, primary school class sizes and student-teacher ratios are above the OECD average whereby Ireland ‘ranks more poorly in these areas than many of its OECD counterparts’ (Kelleher and Weir, 2016: 57). Furthermore, activities are tightly organised to facilitate teaching an overcrowded curriculum (National Council for Curriculum and Assessment [NCCA], 2010). This kind of situation can cause tensions between children and adults in authority, when the former try to assert their autonomy and agency by engaging in activities that are contra to school norms and authority.
Social bonds and social action
According to Corsaro (2000) children’s reactions to adult authority are ‘secondary adjustments’ that lead to the development of an ‘underlife’ – a vital aspect of children’s group identity (p. 93). An underlife is a set of behaviours and activities that contradict challenge or violate the official norms or rules of an organisation, or institution (Corsaro, 2000: 93). Children’s underlife exists in parallel and in response to unequal power relations and organisational school rules that restrict their agency and autonomy at school. This research suggests that children’s ‘secondary adjustments’ are visible in the kinds of social strategies they participate in to negotiate the norms and rules of their peer group and the wider school environment.
Social bonding is an important aspect of how we communicate, interact and build reciprocal relationships within different social contexts. Hirschi (1969) sees that the existence of social bonds between individuals and groups – when weakened or broken – may cause individuals to engage in behaviour that is contra to group norms and values. His Social Bond theory identifies four components of social bonding: attachment, commitment, involvement – in conformist or deviant activities – and, a system of common values within peer groups. This research referred to Hirschi’s (1969) four components of social bonding to gauge the level of social bonding between children in terms of their: attachment to their peer group, involvement in peer activities and, their adherence to the social rules of their peer group.
Although children experience vulnerability, they can also be agents of social change within different social contexts. For instance within the formal school setting, children can exert their influence (positively and negatively) as active members of their peer groups and in their interactions with adults. However, for children to be agents of social change at school, democratic schooling practices such as affording daily opportunities for them to participate in decision-making processes need to be firmly embedded in a schools’ ethos. A democratic school also recognises students as active school-citizens who have a right and a duty to participate in matters that matter most to them at school. Ideally, in a democratic school children’s opportunity to have their say about classroom-based activities and wider school issues is readily facilitated and given due credence by educators and supported by school leaders. Lundy’s (2007, 2018) Model of Child Participation, for instance, offers a solid framework for schools to build their democratic schooling policy and practices that provide children the ‘Space’, ‘Voice’, ‘Audience’ and ability to exert their ‘Influence’ on matters that matter the most to them at school.
To this end, this research explored children’s forms of citizenship participation within the social context of the Irish primary school. Through a process of inductive analysis of children’s social interactions this research builds upon Corsaro’s (2000) ideas about ‘secondary adjustments’ and Hirschi’s (1969) theory of social bonding.
This research recognises children as citizen-peers who participate in collective forms of social action as part their peer groups at school. Citizen-peer is an explanatory term developed by the researcher through a process of inductive analysis of primary school children’s forms of social interaction as peers of their peer groups at school. In addition, the social strategies observed were identified as forms of Collective Social Action(s) (CSA) used by citizen-peers to negotiate the social milieu of their respective schools. CSA is also an explanatory concept developed through the constant comparative method and a process of inductive analysis.
Children’s interactions were observed within four social domains of interaction: peer to peer, child to adult, peer group to adult and, adult to peer group. Close attention was paid to how levels of social bonding (strong/weak) between children influenced their social interactions at school. Findings are discussed in relation to children’s use of different CSA within these four social domains of interaction within the social context of Irish primary schools. Findings contribute towards theoretical conceptualisations of children’s participation as citizen-peers at school, and they provide novel insights into children’s CSA and the important role social bonding plays in building solidarity between children at school. These new insights could also be useful for educators to develop citizenship education practices that foster solidarity and encourage children’s participation in democratic processes/activities at school.
Methodology
This research fits within an interpretist and constuctivist paradigm and used qualitative methods. The primary rationale for choosing a qualitative methodological design, is its appropriateness for exploring people’s subjective experiences. 1
Ethical approval was obtained from Maynooth University’s Research Ethics Committee. All participating children’s parents/guardians provided written consent. Participating children gave their written and verbal assent. Parents/guardians and participants were informed that data collection would involve the use of audio recordings. Full details were provided about data collection and storage in accordance with Maynooth University’s protocol. All participants, schools and teachers’ details were anonymised. Pseudonyms are used in field note and audio transcripts to maintain confidentiality. This study did not collect information about individual participants’ demographic background and/or familial circumstances.
Research context: Site and participants
The aim of this research was to explore the kinds of collective social actions younger children participated in as citizen-peers within the social context of the school. Six co-educational primary schools in the Republic of Ireland were identified for study by using non-probability purposive snowball sampling. 2 Data was collected from multiple sites to ensure the sample of schools was as representative as possible, thus taking account of credibility of non-random selection (O’ Leary, 2010). In selecting schools, consideration was given to school ethos (religious or multidenominational); class size, gender mix; enrolment size and location.
School ethos plays a key role in schooling practices in Ireland. Roman Catholic schools tend to adhere to more paternalistic and authoritarian modes of schooling which traditionally do not readily afford children’s participation in consensus building and decision-making at school. Multidenominational schools (such as Educate Together Schools) tend to have a more democratic approach to schooling visible, for example, through the schools’ facilitation of student councils. In addition, class size also has a significant impact on the types of activities that can take place in the classroom setting. That is, larger classroom sizes make it more difficult for teachers to facilitate activities that require more time and nuance, such as consensus building and decision making processes. Class groups observed in this research ranged from 18 to 28 children per group and they were a combination of three grade levels, fourth, fifth and sixth. Four of the six classrooms settings observed had 27+ children per class group which is above the European average (see Statista, 2018).
A total of 160 children participated of which 96 were girls and 64 were boys. Participating children were 9- to 12-years-old at Fourth, Fifth and Sixth class grade levels.
A breakdown of the schools who agreed to participate including school ethos, size, location, the duration of observation and the methods employed is shown in Table 1.
Participating primary schools, teachers and pupils (Pseudonyms used).
No demographic information was collected from participants; therefore, any inferences made about school populations are based solely on observational data and anecdotal information offered by children during participant observations, group-interviews and focus groups.
Data collection
During the school year (2016–2017), the researcher conducted a combination of participant and direct observations of class groups (participants n = 101), semi-structured group interviews (Participants n = 87) (conducted in groups of three/four) and focus groups (participants n = 28) (conducted in groups of eight). The types of organised activities observed included classroom-based lessons; outdoor activities (Physical Education); trips to venues outside of the school (e.g. swimming lessons); and workshops/lessons facilitated by visiting adults. Unorganised activities observed mainly consisted of unstructured and/unsupervised playtime in the schoolyard. Social actions were dictated by the social context of the interaction. To capture the changing nature of children’s Collective Social Actions (CSA) within different social contexts, data collection focused on four domains of social interaction: child-adult (individual interaction between children and teachers in the classroom and schoolyard setting); peer-to-peer (peer-led activities such as schoolyard games); peer group-adult (peer-led reactions to visiting adult-led activities) and, adult-peer group (teacher-led classroom based instruction and lessons). Data was recorded through handwritten field notes of classroom-based and schoolyard activities and from audio recordings of group work sessions, group-interviews and focus groups.
Data analysis and interpretation
Children are recognised as agentic social actors and their experiences and social actions constitute the central aspect of analysis. Data analysis was ongoing during data collection. Grounded analysis (Charmaz, 2006; Glaser, 1965) was used to allow categories of analysis to form out of data rather than imposing a pre-determined interpretative framework. 3 A process of inductive analysis (Charmaz, 2006; Glaser, 1965) was applied to audio transcripts, field notes and observations, from which four domains of social interaction between children and adults were identified for analysis. The explanatory concepts citizen-peers and CSA were also developed. These concepts are utilised to demonstrate the important role social bonding plays in the kinds of CSA children used as citizen-peers at school. Findings draw on observational data, which demonstrates the kinds of competition and protest-based CSA children as citizen-peers participated in during schoolyard games and classroom-based group work/lessons.
Children’s collective social action(s)
Research findings are discussed under four headings: peer to peer, child to adult, peer group to adult and adult to peer group. These reflect four social domains of interaction between peers and between children and adults at school.
Participant and direct observations revealed that children’s CSA were primarily conducted within four key domains of social interaction as shown in Figure 1. The CSA(s) observed were competition and or protest-based. Overall, more incidents of covert protest-based CSA were observed. Recorded incidents revealed that children’s peer interactions in and outside of the classroom reproduced and reinforced positive and/negative social dynamics between them. Strong(er) levels of social bonds tended to coincide with more group attachment, commitment and a common set of values (Hirschi, 1969) between children at school. This was manifest in unprompted helpfulness and friendliness towards each other and general camaraderie during group work and schoolyard games. Contrastingly low(er) levels of social bonding tended to manifest in unhelpful actions (not cooperating during group work/games), individualistic endeavours (not helping classmates in need) and exclusionary practices (not inviting or including peers to join in games).
Four key domains of social interaction where children participate as citizen-peers at school.
Children’s forms of CSA were group-led and largely borne out of the desire to achieve a common goal for the benefit of peer group members (i.e. any peer who was participating in an activity for the good of the group). A common goal could be to be the ‘winners’ of a competitive endeavour. Equally, a common goal could be to protest against a situation/activity children would rather not participate in, thus gaining a modicum of power and control over their largely subordinate circumstances at school and/or bolstering their social position within their peer group. Whether a CSA was competition or protest-based, it (inadvertently) fostered a sense of solidarity between children who deduced they had a better chance of achieving their common goal if they collaborated in their efforts to do so.
Peer-to-peer interaction (child-led; competition-based CSA)
Peer-to-peer interactions revealed the internal power dynamic between children. Children were constantly either vying for control of the peer group and or maintaining their social position as valued (i.e. popular) peer group members. For instance, children observed tended to engage in overt forms of competition-based CSA to assert and/or maintain their social position within the peer group. The following observational data demonstrates a form of competition-based CSA between children from a mixed Fourth and Fifth class group. There were 28 children in this classroom. Seating arrangements consisted of three tables with eight/nine children per table. This class group frequently participated in a classroom practice called ‘Tidy Tables’. A league table was part of this activity and each of the three table groups had a name (See Figure 2.). The table that came first in any classroom activity was awarded a star on the league table.
Photograph of ‘Tidy Tables’ classroom initiative drawn on the classroom whiteboard at St. Finbarr’s.
Observations of this practice revealed children’s positive association with it – indicated by their animated expressions and excited efforts to tidy their workspaces. Whenever Ms Byrne called out, ‘Tidy Tables!’ the children immediately tidied their individual workspace. Ms Byrne praised children who tidied their table the quickest and who sat quietly with their fingers on their lips. The class group would sit in silence while she decided upon the winning table. After which, she placed a star beside the designated winning table in competition against the other two tables in the classroom. ‘Tidy tables’ was a competitive classroom practice that had the potential to foster competitiveness and teamwork between children (citizen-peers). Yet, this was largely dependent upon the amount of social bonding between citizen-peers. ‘Tidy Tables’ was a time sensitive activity initiated by the class teacher who used it as an opportunity to motivate 28 children to clean their workspaces, whilst fostering helpfulness and solidarity between them. Children who had stronger social bonds, more frequently helped each other to tidy their respective workspaces and to be the ‘winners’. Weaker social bonds observed during this activity manifested in diminished levels of cooperation and a general lack of enthusiasm to complete the task as a group endeavour. Children with weaker social bonds seemed to have lost interest in being the ‘winners’.
Children’s forms of peer to peer competition-based CSA were also visible during game playing in the schoolyard. Direct observations of children’s schoolyard games revealed that they functioned on two levels. Firstly, they were a source of fun and children enjoyed the physicality of group games. Secondly, they were a way for children to uphold their duty as citizen-peers by enforcing agreed social rules/norms whilst reasserting their social hierarchy and associated citizenship rights and duties within their peer groups. Citizenship rights in this incident allowed citizen-peers the ‘right’ to participate in the game. However, it was the duty of each citizen-peer to obey the rules and to remind others when they were not. Observations of a schoolyard game ‘Pussy Four Squares’ revealed the internal peer dynamic between higher and lower ranking citizen-peers, who used competitive means to assert their social position within the peer group. As more children joined in, players became more competitive with each other. It was beneficial if your friend was also playing and some players worked with their friend to keep both squares safe from capture.
. . ..Tom (10) duped Sharon (10) out of her square. She followed the rules and walked back to the end of the line of children waiting their turn to play. Both Tom and Darren (10) dashed towards the vacated square. They tussled to nudge each other out of the space. Tom shouted, ‘Get out Darren I got here first!’ Darren didn’t respond. He held his position for a couple of seconds, and then he gave way to Tom. Darren walked out of the game. None of the others came to his defence and the game continued without him. (Field note excerpt from Oakfield).
Tom was physically and socially more robust than Darren, which he used to physically and metaphorically push Darren from the space he had tried to claim. Darren lost face and walked out of the game, which reaffirmed his own lower social status and Tom’ higher status to fellow citizen-peers. Children were often unforgiving towards anyone who broke the rules (they employed a zero-tolerance policy), which suggests they place significant importance on rules and justice. Findings also reiterate the importance of social bonding between peers, who are more likely to succeed in their endeavours (i.e. staying in the game) if they have strong peer allegiances.
Child to adult interaction (teacher-led; covert protest-based CSA)
Child-adult interactions in the classroom and schoolyard generally resulted in covert forms of protest-based CSA due to the unequal power dynamic between children and adults in authority in this social domain. During these kinds of interactions, children defaulted to covert means of asserting themselves against teacher-led activities to minimise the risk of reprisals for going against adult authority. Observed forms of children’s covert CSA were conducted out of earshot or the vision of their teacher. This implies that children felt unable to assert their agency and autonomy in more direct ways at school. Forms of covert CSA observed included: pulling faces behind their teacher’s back or whispering retorts out of earshot, not following through on a teacher’s instructions – especially when they were distracted. Some children also took extra time to carry out teacher directed tasks, mimicked adults in funny voices (out of adults’ earshot). Citizen-peers higher up in the social hierarchy tended to display more overt forms of protest-based CSA. For example, they sometimes spoke in a funny voice when asked to contribute in class. They also tried to encourage other children to participate in disruptive behaviours. Some children whispered complaints under their breath, rolled their eyes upwards and sighed. Some tried to test how far they could push their (mis)behaviour by repeating an action after they were told to stop – such as the continued use of books/pens.
Peer group to adult (child-led; overt protest-based CSA)
In contrast to covert forms of CSA, children (as a group) tended to use overt protest-based CSA to assert themselves against visiting adults of lesser authority. Peer group-adult interactions revealed children’s overt protest-based CSA, which they used to disrupt adult-led activities. Children utilised this form of CSA during social interactions with adults deemed to have lesser authority such as, resource/trainee teachers, volunteers and visiting researchers. In these incidences, when children collaborated, the balance of power moved in their favour and they (for a short time) succeeded in disrupting the activity, thus asserting their collective agency. Collective protests also shielded children from individual reprisal for their (mis)behaviour. The following excerpt depicts the social interaction between Peter (adult volunteer) and a group of boys who are disrupting his attempts to deliver a music lesson.
The group play their tin whistles out of tune. Peter exclaims, ‘Ah, stop, stop, stop, sure you are all making false notes!’ John smirks over at Kieron (12). The class is giddy and restless. Ms Doyle puts her finger to her lips to signal them to be quiet and then goes back to correcting copybooks at her desk. They settle down, but a few moments later, Colm (10) flicks his ruler over at Finn; this appears to have gone unnoticed by Ms Doyle. Peter moves over to another table and now focuses his attention on Darren and Henry (9). He goes through Darren’s music folder and chides him for how unorganised and messy it is. Henry smirks over at Darren as Peter fusses over his folder. Darren is unfazed and seems to be enjoying Peter’s fluster. Henry now sticks the tin whistle up his nose and tries to blow through it behind Peter’s back. Peter gives out to Darren who is now grinning widely at Henry’s antics, ‘Shush please, now come on! You’re not listening to me at all, I’m explaining something to you and you’re looking around the room!’ (Field note excerpt from St. Joseph’s).
The group of boys disrupting this music lesson were higher-ranking citizen-peers. They frequently collaborated in protest-based forms of CSA to assert themselves against adults (of lesser authority) and in and competitive-based CSA to assert their social status within the peer group. This school veered towards authoritarian and paternalistic approaches to schooling. Furthermore, previous observations of this class indicate that this group of children would not have behaved in this manner if Ms Doyle were giving this lesson. She had full authority and control; therefore, this class group generally did not overtly go against her authority. If they did, Ms Doyle quickly chastised them and put them back in their place, which reinforced this group’s diminished autonomy in the classroom.
Children also enacted their overt protest-based CSA during focus groups. I asked each group to reach a consensus about different options presented to them such as, ‘Would you rather stay longer in school every day if it meant that you had no homework, or, have less time at school and extra homework at home? Again, higher-ranking female and male citizen-peers were the main instigators who aimed to disrupt the flow of a focus group. During one of these group consensus exercises, some higher-ranking citizen-peers became very giddy and pretended to have an argument with each other.
Extra Homework!
Just say it!
No! I said extra homework!
Would you rather work in a group or on your own?
(The group huddle together to reach a consensus. Again, Rory does not agree with the others)
Oh my God! In a group you don’t have to do all the work!
On my own I don’t get annoyed by people.
(Audio excerpt, Focus group from St. Finbarr’s).
Rory was deliberately trying to frustrate the group and he was reacting against this adult-led activity by trying to assert some control over the situation. This incident clearly demonstrates the ways some children tried to assert some agency and autonomy over situations they would rather not be in at school. Some of the more assertive children directly challenged adults.
Why are we doing this?
I want to see how you work together to reach a decision.
Yeah, but some of them are really dumb.
You would never come up with a question like that.
(At this, the group get very giddy. Rory and Gerry (11) start to snipe at each other. Carol used this to her advantage to gain some more control over the situation)
How can you stand kids?
Why do you say that Carol? (She doesn’t respond. But, just as the group were settling down, she interrupts again)
You wanna get an A+
You wanta get a job.
(I explain to the group that I’m just trying to better understand how they see the world now)
We have a lovely time Caitríona.
Don’t take this offensive. But, when you came, it was like everybody loved you and all they did was talk to you.
It was so annoying they were always talking to you.
People, oh, they were like, “Caitríona’s here now, let’s take the piss!”
Carol!
So, you don’t think peole were being honest or behaving normally; they were just messing about?
Yeah!
(Audio transcript continued from St. Finbarr’s).
This focus group was conducted on the last day of research at this school. Schooling practices at this school were paternalistic and authoritarian. Previous observations of this group of children also suggest that they would not have overtly challenged this session if their teacher had been present. Perhaps this session (inadvertently) gave children the space to be very honest and to express how they ‘really’ felt about ‘participating’ in this research. Furthermore, this suggests that these children felt more able to assert their autonomy during our focus group session in a way that was not possible for them to do so in class. This incident also demonstrates the consequences of weak(er) social bonds between group members, who sniped and contradicted each other throughout and/or they disengaged from participating altogether. Only higher ranking citizen-peers used this CSA to bolster their social position within the group and to gain control by thwarting the activity.
Adult to peer group interaction (teacher-led; covert protest-based CSA)
During adult-peer group interactions, power shifted back towards adults in authority. As such, children used covert forms of CSA to assert themselves. This could be due in part to the authoritarian and paternalistic approach to schooling adopted by participating schools; characterised by children’s diminished opportunity to participate in decision-making processes. The following observational data demonstrates how social bonding between citizen-peers produced a form of covert CSA, which they used to achieve a common goal (i.e. avoid reprisals as a group for (mis)behaviour).
Ms Roe held up the compost bin to the class, inside was a full uneaten banana and an uneaten sandwich. Ms Roe; ‘Whoever put these in the bin needs to be honest and take them back out. No good food is to be thrown away; this is not what the compost bin is for’. Janine (10) admitted that the banana was hers and that she threw it away because. . . ‘it had gone all black’. Ms Roe thanked Janine for her honesty. The class fell silent. Ms Roe, ‘No drama if no one owns up’. John and Rachel went up to have a look inside of the bin (still held by Ms Roe), they peeped in and justified how the sandwich could not be theirs. Ms Roe, ‘you should not need to look inside the bin to know if the food is yours or not’. She repeated, ‘no drama if no one admits responsibility’. Lisa (10) put up her hand, ‘It’s mine’. Ms Roe thanked her for being honest. Lisa went up and took the sandwich out of the bin. The class looked relieved. As they busied themselves with getting ready for their drama session, Susan (10) came over and whispered to me, ‘It’s not hers, it’s someone else’s’. I asked, ‘Who’s is it?’ She shrugged her shoulders. I replied, ‘So, Lisa took the blame?’ Susan, ‘Yeah, David did the same thing last week’. (Field note excerpt, participant observations from St. Assumpta’s).
Ms Roe was unaware of Lisa’s innocence and none of the other children alerted her to this. Everyone kept silent and allowed Lisa to take the blame for the rest of the class. A possible reason for this could be that the rest of the class were not privy to the true wrongdoer’s identity. Another could be that they did not want to reveal who the wrongdoer was as they could be chastised by the others for ‘telling-tales’. Susan’s divulging of information about David’s similar actions the previous week – again unbeknownst to Ms Roe – suggests this practice is a social strategy used by some citizen-peers in this group to bolster their social position (popularity). This incident also demonstrates a form of peer solidarity citizen-peers used to block adults from gaining insider knowledge into the internal social dynamic of their peer group. This incident also provides an example of children’s covert protest-based CSA, which they used to gain some control over their limited autonomy in the adult-led school environment. Knowledge is power and the less knowledge adults’ have about children’s social worlds; the more power/control children can exert through adults’ ignorance of their internal social dynamics.
Discussion
It has been argued that children have diminished status as practicing citizens at school (Deegan et al., 2004; Devine, 2002, 2003, 2009; Horgan et al., 2015). According to Devine (2002) occurrences of ‘passive forms of resistance’ are an indication of . . . ‘the absence of a culture of active participation of children in the process of change in schools’ (p. 316). Findings herein, concur with Devine’s (2002, 2003, 2009) research as they also illustrate the kinds of (covert and overt) CSA children used to assert themselves against schooling practices that deny them autonomy and agency. This research also builds upon Corsaro’s (2000) ideas about peers ‘secondary adjustments’ (p. 93) and Hirschi’s (1969) theory of social bonding because it demonstrates how children actively participate in forms of CSA to negotiate the social milieu of the primary school and the social dynamics of their peer groups.
Social context largely dictates the flow of power between children and adults. Findings presented here illustrate the different kinds of CSA employed by citizen-peers to negotiate the social protocols and power dynamic during social interactions with peers and adults at school. Observations of social interactions revealed that children’s (mis)behaviours were performed either overtly or covertly. Children participated in overt competition-based CSA during competitive classroom initiatives (‘Tidy Tables’), schoolyard games and sports, which motivated them to collaborate in their efforts to achieve a common goal (i.e. to be the winners). Competitive initiatives had the potential to foster collaboration and solidarity between children with high(er) levels of social bonding between them, otherwise this was diminished. Observations also revealed that children mainly participated in covert (i.e. safe) forms of protest-based CSA. This was often the only way children could assert themselves against adult power and control in their largely subordinate position at school. Contrastingly, children participated in more overt protest-based CSA against adults deemed to have lesser authority over them.
Children’s participation in CSA as citizen-peers is perhaps the most accessible form of collaboration and participation available to them at school during middle-childhood. Classroom practices, which encourage collaboration between children such as debating, voting and decision making, could help foster more understanding and solidarity between children at school. Nonetheless, time-hungry democratic schooling practices that afford time and space for children to voice their opinions and to listen to the opinions of others poses challenges. Findings based on observations of schooling practices at six primary schools reflect this issue and concur with existing Irish research, which highlights that classroom sizes in Ireland remain too large (Kelleher and Weir, 2016) and that activities are tightly scheduled to facilitate the teaching of an overcrowded curriculum (NCCA, 2010). This state of affairs poses a significant challenge for Irish primary schools endeavouring to develop a citizenship education that is democratically-led and permeates school culture and practices.
Conclusion
It is vital that schooling culture and practices readily facilitate children’s opportunities to learn the art of democracy, otherwise, our youngest citizens may miss out on valuable opportunities to learn how to be democratic and how to put it into practice.
This research adds to literatures that explore children’s citizenship participation and it asserts that social bonding is a prerequisite for developing democratic practice between children and adults at school. Findings illustrate the kinds of competition and protest-based Collective Social Action (CSA) children as citizen-peers engaged in at school. These insights shed some light on the internal dynamics of children’s CSA and highlight the important role social bonding plays in fostering solidarity between children. Findings could also benefit educators when developing and facilitating opportunities that foster democratic participation and solidarity between children as a core part of their citizenship education at school.
Adults need to acknowledge and recognise children’s modes of peer collaboration and participation because they reflect important aspects of children’s social lives as citizen-peers at school. More interdisciplinary research between educators, psychologists and sociologists that explores and examines the micro politics of children’s social worlds would be beneficial. This approach could have two important outcomes. Firstly, it could assist policymakers and educators in the development and delivery of a citizenship education curriculum, which is more congruent with children’s realities as citizen-peers. Secondly, more interdisciplinary research could reveal pertinent insights about issues that affect children’s socio-emotional development and citizenship wellbeing at school and elsewhere.
Data limitations
The time and type of access granted influenced the kinds of data collected within each of the six participating schools. This also had an impact on children’s participation in this research in terms of their opportunity to voice their subjective understandings and experiences as citizen-peers. Nonetheless, a strength of the current study was the use of different data collection methods which affords insights into children’s social worlds viewed through a citizenship lens on two levels, in terms of their social actions (through direct and participant observations) and their verbalisations about their experiences (through group interviews and focus groups).
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The author was awarded The John and Pat Hume Scholarship to conduct this research as part of her Ph.D.
