Pub Date : 2021-06-17DOI: 10.1177/09075682211020069
Sylvia Meichsner
This review takes a close look at three studies exploring residential care for children and young people and the mechanisms that lead to children ending up there. The studies examine three different national settings – Japan, Russia and China (Goodman, 2000; Khlinovskaya Rockhill, 2010; Wang 2016) – exploring the specific historic, economic, political and socio-cultural forces which have shaped the emergence and development of children’s residential care in each country and to which they also respond. Spanning roughly two decades between them, all three studies are concerned with specific and concrete cases (Lund, 2014: 225), focusing on real events, each at a specific place and time in history. Ahead of their time, the three studies connect research foci on children and young people with more far-reaching phenomena, with the insights these connections have to offer enabling a better understanding of the human condition more generally (Spyrou, 2018: 2). All three studies demonstrate how research into residential care for children and young people can serve as a magnifying glass on the wider social, political and economic processes in a given society, as well as on the prevailing value systems that inform conceptualizations of children, childhoods, gender roles and the ideal family. The three studies have not only been chosen because of their high quality, but also because the kind of research which they represent is quite rare – perhaps because conducting it requires a specific combination of formal conditions and a researcher equipped
{"title":"The ideological underpinnings and political usefulness of residential care for children and young people","authors":"Sylvia Meichsner","doi":"10.1177/09075682211020069","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09075682211020069","url":null,"abstract":"This review takes a close look at three studies exploring residential care for children and young people and the mechanisms that lead to children ending up there. The studies examine three different national settings – Japan, Russia and China (Goodman, 2000; Khlinovskaya Rockhill, 2010; Wang 2016) – exploring the specific historic, economic, political and socio-cultural forces which have shaped the emergence and development of children’s residential care in each country and to which they also respond. Spanning roughly two decades between them, all three studies are concerned with specific and concrete cases (Lund, 2014: 225), focusing on real events, each at a specific place and time in history. Ahead of their time, the three studies connect research foci on children and young people with more far-reaching phenomena, with the insights these connections have to offer enabling a better understanding of the human condition more generally (Spyrou, 2018: 2). All three studies demonstrate how research into residential care for children and young people can serve as a magnifying glass on the wider social, political and economic processes in a given society, as well as on the prevailing value systems that inform conceptualizations of children, childhoods, gender roles and the ideal family. The three studies have not only been chosen because of their high quality, but also because the kind of research which they represent is quite rare – perhaps because conducting it requires a specific combination of formal conditions and a researcher equipped","PeriodicalId":47764,"journal":{"name":"Childhood-A Global Journal of Child Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2021-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/09075682211020069","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47351177","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-06-10DOI: 10.1177/09075682211020503
M. Lang, B. Shelley
Child-led research has arisen in response to changed perspectives on children’s rights and capabilities. However, questions remain about the implications of children participating in ways and for purposes designed by adults. This paper examines a child-led research project through the heuristic of dialogism to identify the perspectives and motivations of adults and children – the many ‘voices’ of the situation. Ontological conceptualisations of childhood, adult critical self-reflection, accommodation of children’s priorities and openness towards unexpected or challenging outcomes are discussed.
{"title":"Children as researchers: Wild things and the dialogic imagination","authors":"M. Lang, B. Shelley","doi":"10.1177/09075682211020503","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09075682211020503","url":null,"abstract":"Child-led research has arisen in response to changed perspectives on children’s rights and capabilities. However, questions remain about the implications of children participating in ways and for purposes designed by adults. This paper examines a child-led research project through the heuristic of dialogism to identify the perspectives and motivations of adults and children – the many ‘voices’ of the situation. Ontological conceptualisations of childhood, adult critical self-reflection, accommodation of children’s priorities and openness towards unexpected or challenging outcomes are discussed.","PeriodicalId":47764,"journal":{"name":"Childhood-A Global Journal of Child Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2021-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/09075682211020503","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42821966","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-05-01Epub Date: 2021-02-11DOI: 10.1177/0907568221991617
Veronica Pacini-Ketchabaw, Cristina D Vintimilla, Alex Berry
This article considers the intersection of multiple and, at times, seemingly conflicting temporalities in Andean childhoods. We draw on Silvia Rivera Cusicanqui's scholarship on Andean sociology and our ethnographic research with Cañari families to argue that Cañari families' and children's relations with cows and milk production are fueled by both capitalist and Andean temporalities that cannot be thought as opposites. These temporal relations do not create confusion or limiting binaries but are, we propose, itinerant. We show how Cañari children's and cows' collective lives are knitted within ch'ixi temporalities.
{"title":"Cañari children, cows and milk production: Toward ch'ixi temporalities in the Andes.","authors":"Veronica Pacini-Ketchabaw, Cristina D Vintimilla, Alex Berry","doi":"10.1177/0907568221991617","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568221991617","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article considers the intersection of multiple and, at times, seemingly conflicting temporalities in Andean childhoods. We draw on Silvia Rivera Cusicanqui's scholarship on Andean sociology and our ethnographic research with Cañari families to argue that Cañari families' and children's relations with cows and milk production are fueled by both capitalist and Andean temporalities that cannot be thought as opposites. These temporal relations do not create confusion or limiting binaries but are, we propose, itinerant. We show how Cañari children's and cows' collective lives are knitted within ch'ixi temporalities.</p>","PeriodicalId":47764,"journal":{"name":"Childhood-A Global Journal of Child Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0907568221991617","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39035904","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-05-01DOI: 10.1177/09075682211011835
M. Hammersley, C. Kim
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
{"title":"Child-led research, children’s rights and childhood studies – A reply to Thomas","authors":"M. Hammersley, C. Kim","doi":"10.1177/09075682211011835","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09075682211011835","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":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/09075682211011835","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49253386","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-04-09DOI: 10.1177/0907568221996428
Peter Westoby, L. Cox, J. Cartmel, Brett Roland, Leonie Treasure, Amy Blane, J. Morgan
This article explores how an organisation – Jabiru – integrates a learning ‘community’ philosophy into its work with children, particularly within what is understood within Australia as School-aged Care (SAC). Distinguished from other organisations, Jabiru understands community is an intentional practice that provides what we find to be a unique third space, one with links to what is sometimes understood as the new neighbourhood. Research observations and interviews in two SAC sites, guided by the conceptual framework of loving, having and being, led to key findings about the intentional approach to community that supports learning, and the significance of educator wisdom.
{"title":"Towards a ‘third space’ community practice school-aged-care: A learning community and ‘the new neighbourhood’","authors":"Peter Westoby, L. Cox, J. Cartmel, Brett Roland, Leonie Treasure, Amy Blane, J. Morgan","doi":"10.1177/0907568221996428","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568221996428","url":null,"abstract":"This article explores how an organisation – Jabiru – integrates a learning ‘community’ philosophy into its work with children, particularly within what is understood within Australia as School-aged Care (SAC). Distinguished from other organisations, Jabiru understands community is an intentional practice that provides what we find to be a unique third space, one with links to what is sometimes understood as the new neighbourhood. Research observations and interviews in two SAC sites, guided by the conceptual framework of loving, having and being, led to key findings about the intentional approach to community that supports learning, and the significance of educator wisdom.","PeriodicalId":47764,"journal":{"name":"Childhood-A Global Journal of Child Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2021-04-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0907568221996428","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42846808","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-03-21DOI: 10.1177/09075682211000111
L. Green, Lisa Warwick, Lisa Moran
Touch and silence are neglected across most disciplines, including within child-specific academic literature, and their interconnections have not been studied before. This article focuses on touch/silence convergences in residential childcare in England, drawing from two qualitative studies. We reveal the fluidity, multidimensionality and intersectionality of touch and silence, illuminating the labyrinthine ways they frequently coalesce in children’s homes, often assuming ambiguous forms and meanings. We therefore offer new understandings of these concepts, as multifaceted, entwined, temporal and malleable.
{"title":"Silencing touch and touching silence? Understanding the complex links between touch and silence in residential child care settings","authors":"L. Green, Lisa Warwick, Lisa Moran","doi":"10.1177/09075682211000111","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09075682211000111","url":null,"abstract":"Touch and silence are neglected across most disciplines, including within child-specific academic literature, and their interconnections have not been studied before. This article focuses on touch/silence convergences in residential childcare in England, drawing from two qualitative studies. We reveal the fluidity, multidimensionality and intersectionality of touch and silence, illuminating the labyrinthine ways they frequently coalesce in children’s homes, often assuming ambiguous forms and meanings. We therefore offer new understandings of these concepts, as multifaceted, entwined, temporal and malleable.","PeriodicalId":47764,"journal":{"name":"Childhood-A Global Journal of Child Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2021-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/09075682211000111","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47073557","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-02-22DOI: 10.1177/0907568221996743
N. Thomas
Recent articles by Kim and Hammersley have critiqued, respectively: the methodological and normative assumptions that underlie research ‘by’ children; claims made about the implications of children’s rights for the ethics of research with children; and more broadly, some of the central commitments of Childhood Studies. This paper offers a response to these critiques, seeking to distinguish between those that clearly should be accepted, those that appear to be based on a misreading of the claims being made by scholars and researchers, and those that represent serious challenges to defend, redefine or rethink our aims, claims or practices.
{"title":"Child-led research, children’s rights and childhood studies: A defence","authors":"N. Thomas","doi":"10.1177/0907568221996743","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568221996743","url":null,"abstract":"Recent articles by Kim and Hammersley have critiqued, respectively: the methodological and normative assumptions that underlie research ‘by’ children; claims made about the implications of children’s rights for the ethics of research with children; and more broadly, some of the central commitments of Childhood Studies. This paper offers a response to these critiques, seeking to distinguish between those that clearly should be accepted, those that appear to be based on a misreading of the claims being made by scholars and researchers, and those that represent serious challenges to defend, redefine or rethink our aims, claims or practices.","PeriodicalId":47764,"journal":{"name":"Childhood-A Global Journal of Child Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2021-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0907568221996743","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43350988","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-02-15DOI: 10.1177/0907568220981159
Dympna Devine, G. Bolotta, Elena Samonova, C. Sugrue, S. Sloan, J. Symonds, D. Capistrano
This paper explores the generationing of education and development in five villages in Northern Sierra Leone. Understood as ‘fields’ governed by power dynamics, we consider how the interactive ‘fields’ of generation, education and development coalesce, re/structuring adult and child ‘being’ and ‘doing’. We explore the tensions that arise between transformation and preservation in the field in light of wider social, cultural and economic change, and the negotiation of the generational contract in contexts of high risk and inter-dependency.
{"title":"Becoming ‘brilliant’: Generationing education and development in rural Sierra Leone","authors":"Dympna Devine, G. Bolotta, Elena Samonova, C. Sugrue, S. Sloan, J. Symonds, D. Capistrano","doi":"10.1177/0907568220981159","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568220981159","url":null,"abstract":"This paper explores the generationing of education and development in five villages in Northern Sierra Leone. Understood as ‘fields’ governed by power dynamics, we consider how the interactive ‘fields’ of generation, education and development coalesce, re/structuring adult and child ‘being’ and ‘doing’. We explore the tensions that arise between transformation and preservation in the field in light of wider social, cultural and economic change, and the negotiation of the generational contract in contexts of high risk and inter-dependency.","PeriodicalId":47764,"journal":{"name":"Childhood-A Global Journal of Child Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2021-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0907568220981159","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41965910","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-02-12DOI: 10.1177/0907568220987149
Spyros Spyrou
My call in this editorial is for Childhood Studies to become more public with the added caveat that it should retain its critical rigor while doing so. Yet, despite my stated preference, my interest with this editorial is less to convince that this is indeed a good move for the field and more to encourage a discussion around the issue—in that sense, my call is meant to be preliminary. After all, fields do not follow individual injunctions, but move and develop in ways which are impacted by multiple forces which coalesce at particular times, many of which escape any individual’s control. A concern with becoming more public has been an ongoing preoccupation for many disciplines and fields of study. Much of the discussion often revolves around questions of relevance and impact. How relevant is our discipline or field beyond academia? What kinds of public concerns are we responding to and how much impact do we have? In recent decades, there has been a more systematic attempt to address such questions in fields like sociology and anthropology, where explicit fears of becoming too obscure and irrelevant to the ongoing challenges faced by humanity, have sparked productive dialogues. In a much influential presidential address in 2004, Michael Burawoy (2005a) called for a public sociology that would address diverse publics and become a legitimate enterprise within the field. Burawoy argued that a public sociology would not negate but rather complement the work of professional, critical and policy sociology. Burawoy’s address has been discussed and debated since then with both supporters and critics contributing towards a more productive dialogue about sociology’s mission and trajectory as a discipline. In anthropology, Robert Borofsky (2019) has recently levelled a harsh critique on the field calling for a paradigm shift and a move towards a public anthropology which does not seek to sharply differentiate itself from a well-established applied anthropology but attempts to become more relevant and responsive to contemporary public concerns in public ways. That Borofsky’s book was endorsed by 35 prominent anthropologists is perhaps suggestive about the recognition and consensus around this need. I suggest that Childhood Studies might also benefit from a more explicit discussion around this issue which expands on Karl Hanson’s recent editorial in Childhood (Hanson 2019) on the societal impact of academic childhood and children’s rights research. If nothing else, a dialogue around this issue will encourage the field to reflect on its own practices and interventions as well as its overall remit. So what does it mean then to call for a public Childhood Studies? It first and foremost means to engage with diverse publics beyond the scholarly worlds of academia and research. Those of us who work in academic settings already engage with a significant public, namely our students, but depending on the research work we do, with other 987149 CHD0010.1177/09075682209871
{"title":"A preliminary call for a critical public childhood studies","authors":"Spyros Spyrou","doi":"10.1177/0907568220987149","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568220987149","url":null,"abstract":"My call in this editorial is for Childhood Studies to become more public with the added caveat that it should retain its critical rigor while doing so. Yet, despite my stated preference, my interest with this editorial is less to convince that this is indeed a good move for the field and more to encourage a discussion around the issue—in that sense, my call is meant to be preliminary. After all, fields do not follow individual injunctions, but move and develop in ways which are impacted by multiple forces which coalesce at particular times, many of which escape any individual’s control. A concern with becoming more public has been an ongoing preoccupation for many disciplines and fields of study. Much of the discussion often revolves around questions of relevance and impact. How relevant is our discipline or field beyond academia? What kinds of public concerns are we responding to and how much impact do we have? In recent decades, there has been a more systematic attempt to address such questions in fields like sociology and anthropology, where explicit fears of becoming too obscure and irrelevant to the ongoing challenges faced by humanity, have sparked productive dialogues. In a much influential presidential address in 2004, Michael Burawoy (2005a) called for a public sociology that would address diverse publics and become a legitimate enterprise within the field. Burawoy argued that a public sociology would not negate but rather complement the work of professional, critical and policy sociology. Burawoy’s address has been discussed and debated since then with both supporters and critics contributing towards a more productive dialogue about sociology’s mission and trajectory as a discipline. In anthropology, Robert Borofsky (2019) has recently levelled a harsh critique on the field calling for a paradigm shift and a move towards a public anthropology which does not seek to sharply differentiate itself from a well-established applied anthropology but attempts to become more relevant and responsive to contemporary public concerns in public ways. That Borofsky’s book was endorsed by 35 prominent anthropologists is perhaps suggestive about the recognition and consensus around this need. I suggest that Childhood Studies might also benefit from a more explicit discussion around this issue which expands on Karl Hanson’s recent editorial in Childhood (Hanson 2019) on the societal impact of academic childhood and children’s rights research. If nothing else, a dialogue around this issue will encourage the field to reflect on its own practices and interventions as well as its overall remit. So what does it mean then to call for a public Childhood Studies? It first and foremost means to engage with diverse publics beyond the scholarly worlds of academia and research. Those of us who work in academic settings already engage with a significant public, namely our students, but depending on the research work we do, with other 987149 CHD0010.1177/09075682209871","PeriodicalId":47764,"journal":{"name":"Childhood-A Global Journal of Child Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2021-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0907568220987149","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48225142","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-02-11DOI: 10.1177/0907568221992852
D. Sime, R. Gilligan, J. Scholtz
This article draws on a school-based case study carried out in Scotland with 11–12-year-olds reflecting on their views and experiences of school before transitioning from primary to secondary school. Drawing on Honneth’s recognition theory, and the dimensions of love, rights and solidarity, the findings show that school was seen by children as a place of dialogue, reciprocity and recognition; the learning and knowledge activities cannot be separated from the relational and emotional aspects. When misrecognition happens, subjects’ identity and sense of self-respect can be deeply violated.
{"title":"Children at transition from primary school reflecting on what schools are for – narratives of connectedness, (mis)recognition and becoming","authors":"D. Sime, R. Gilligan, J. Scholtz","doi":"10.1177/0907568221992852","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0907568221992852","url":null,"abstract":"This article draws on a school-based case study carried out in Scotland with 11–12-year-olds reflecting on their views and experiences of school before transitioning from primary to secondary school. Drawing on Honneth’s recognition theory, and the dimensions of love, rights and solidarity, the findings show that school was seen by children as a place of dialogue, reciprocity and recognition; the learning and knowledge activities cannot be separated from the relational and emotional aspects. When misrecognition happens, subjects’ identity and sense of self-respect can be deeply violated.","PeriodicalId":47764,"journal":{"name":"Childhood-A Global Journal of Child Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2021-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/0907568221992852","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46198084","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：