Child-led research, children’s rights and childhood studies – A reply to Thomas

IF 1.6 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Childhood-A Global Journal of Child Research Pub Date : 2021-05-01 DOI:10.1177/09075682211011835
M. Hammersley, C. Kim
{"title":"Child-led research, children’s rights and childhood studies – A reply to Thomas","authors":"M. Hammersley, C. Kim","doi":"10.1177/09075682211011835","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We thank Patrick Thomas for his thoughtful response to our papers. There are places where we disagree with him, but the main purpose of our articles was to prompt discussion of the issues surrounding children’s rights and research ethics, the notion of childled research, and the nature of Childhood Studies (CS). Our, necessarily brief, response to his comments parallels the structure of his article. The aim of the first paper Thomas discusses, as indicated in its introduction, was to challenge the way in which appeals to children’s rights are made in much CS literature without sufficient attention to the problems that have long been identified with the notion of rights. In addition, questions were raised about the way in which the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is frequently appealed to, especially the assumption that compliance requires that research with children must take a ‘participatory’ form. Aside from the general problems with rights claims, it was pointed out that there is no explicit reference to the practice of research in the UNCRC; and that most of its articles are concerned with child protection rather than child participation. Thomas does not question the general discussion of the concept of rights – the fact that there are different types, sources, and groundings for them, and that they may be in conflict – but he does claim that Hammersley relies on a ‘misreading’ of the UNCRC. In support of this, he cites ‘The Committee on the Rights of the Child General Comment No. 12’. He is right that it was remiss for this not to have been taken into account, and he is also correct that this document suggests that Article 12 has wider application than Hammersley implies. However, while the document has sections dealing with a range of specific types of situation, there is none devoted to research, all that is said about it is that in paediatric research and clinical trials children’s consent must be gained, and that all research involving children should provide feedback to them. On our reading, despite its emphasis on children’s ‘participation’ generally, it does not warrant the claim that all research with children must take a participatory form in the manner that some have claimed. We focused on Article 12.1 of the UNCRC because it states the 1011835 CHD0010.1177/09075682211011835ChildhoodHammersley and Kim research-article2021","PeriodicalId":47764,"journal":{"name":"Childhood-A Global Journal of Child Research","volume":"28 1","pages":"200 - 202"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/09075682211011835","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Childhood-A Global Journal of Child Research","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09075682211011835","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

We thank Patrick Thomas for his thoughtful response to our papers. There are places where we disagree with him, but the main purpose of our articles was to prompt discussion of the issues surrounding children’s rights and research ethics, the notion of childled research, and the nature of Childhood Studies (CS). Our, necessarily brief, response to his comments parallels the structure of his article. The aim of the first paper Thomas discusses, as indicated in its introduction, was to challenge the way in which appeals to children’s rights are made in much CS literature without sufficient attention to the problems that have long been identified with the notion of rights. In addition, questions were raised about the way in which the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is frequently appealed to, especially the assumption that compliance requires that research with children must take a ‘participatory’ form. Aside from the general problems with rights claims, it was pointed out that there is no explicit reference to the practice of research in the UNCRC; and that most of its articles are concerned with child protection rather than child participation. Thomas does not question the general discussion of the concept of rights – the fact that there are different types, sources, and groundings for them, and that they may be in conflict – but he does claim that Hammersley relies on a ‘misreading’ of the UNCRC. In support of this, he cites ‘The Committee on the Rights of the Child General Comment No. 12’. He is right that it was remiss for this not to have been taken into account, and he is also correct that this document suggests that Article 12 has wider application than Hammersley implies. However, while the document has sections dealing with a range of specific types of situation, there is none devoted to research, all that is said about it is that in paediatric research and clinical trials children’s consent must be gained, and that all research involving children should provide feedback to them. On our reading, despite its emphasis on children’s ‘participation’ generally, it does not warrant the claim that all research with children must take a participatory form in the manner that some have claimed. We focused on Article 12.1 of the UNCRC because it states the 1011835 CHD0010.1177/09075682211011835ChildhoodHammersley and Kim research-article2021
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
儿童主导的研究、儿童权利和儿童研究——回复Thomas
我们感谢帕特里克·托马斯对我们的论文作出的深思熟虑的回应。有些地方我们不同意他的观点,但我们文章的主要目的是促使人们讨论围绕儿童权利和研究伦理、儿童主导研究的概念以及儿童研究(CS)的性质的问题。我们对他的评论的回应,必然是简短的,与他的文章结构相似。正如引言所示,托马斯讨论的第一篇论文的目的是挑战许多CS文献中对儿童权利的呼吁方式,而没有充分关注长期以来与权利概念有关的问题。此外,有人对《联合国儿童权利公约》(UNCRC)经常被诉诸的方式提出了质疑,特别是关于遵守规定要求儿童研究必须采取“参与式”形式的假设,有人指出,没有明确提及联合国赔偿委员会的研究做法;它的大多数条款都涉及儿童保护,而不是儿童参与。托马斯并不质疑对权利概念的一般性讨论,即权利有不同的类型、来源和依据,而且它们可能存在冲突,但他确实声称哈默斯利依赖于对联合国人权委员会的“误读”。为了支持这一点,他引用了“儿童权利委员会第12号一般性意见”。他是对的,没有考虑到这一点是失职的,他也正确地认为,这份文件表明第12条的适用范围比汉默斯利暗示的更广。然而,尽管该文件有涉及一系列特定类型情况的章节,但没有专门用于研究的章节,所说的只是,在儿科研究和临床试验中,必须征得儿童的同意,所有涉及儿童的研究都应向他们提供反馈。在我们的阅读中,尽管它普遍强调儿童的“参与”,但它并不能保证所有针对儿童的研究都必须像一些人所声称的那样采取参与形式。我们重点关注《联合国儿童权利公约》第12.1条,因为它规定了1011835 CHD0010.1177/09075682211011835儿童哈默斯利和金的研究-第2021条
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Childhood-A Global Journal of Child Research
Childhood-A Global Journal of Child Research SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
15.80%
发文量
43
期刊介绍: Childhood is a major international peer reviewed journal and a forum for research relating to children in global society that spans divisions between geographical regions, disciplines, and social and cultural contexts. Childhood publishes theoretical and empirical articles, reviews and scholarly comments on children"s social relations and culture, with an emphasis on their rights and generational position in society.
期刊最新文献
Deepening our understanding: Collaboration through online peer-to-peer participatory action research with children. Do children have a right to do nothing? Exploring the place of passive leisure in Australian school age care Different trajectories from a common crisis. Survival migrations and resilience of venezuelan adolescents to Peru Teaching ‘global childhoods’ in Childhood Studies Research ethics in childhood research
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1