‘Children as social actors’ and ‘children’s participation’ are key concepts in present-day discourse and form a significant paradigm shift for the educational sciences, inspired by sociology of childhood. Some critical comments can however be made on how these concepts are transcribed into practice. A historical perspective, connecting the micro and the macro level, investigates how the new paradigm may be linked to discursive fields related to neoliberalism and its specific shifts in governmentality. These critical comments are inspired by a historical research into 150 years of governing children and families in Belgium. The discussion is necessary in order to evaluate whether and how the inclusive discourse on children can in turn exclude specific groups of children and adults in late modernity.

Practices in the field of children’s rights presuppose an agreement on what children’s rights are. Consequently, the implementation of more children’s rights is logically better for children. But is this really the case? In this paper, we try to answer this question critically. The problem with this question however is that from the outset, it becomes overshadowed by a highly polarised discussion between what Stammers (2009) calls ‘uncritical proponents’ at the one hand and ‘uncritical opponents’ at the other hand. The former have a blind belief in the obvious positive effects of children’s rights. The latter radically deny the value children’s rights can have in the aim to realise a greater respect for children. Neither positions are constitutive in strengthening the framework of children’ rights since they both start from a ‘consensus thinking’ on children’s rights. What current thinking in children’s rights lacks is “critique”, considered as questioning and analyzing assumptions that are embedded in current practices in the field of children’s rights. In this article, we argue for the development of a tradition of “critical proponents” in children’s rights in a plea for a tradition of ‘critical children’s rights studies’.

No abstract

Participation of children and parents is a central notion in child and family social work. This paper reports on a research dealing with how the participative paradigm comes to the fore in the practice of report writing in the work with looked‐after children. As social work is essentially a language‐centred activity, report writing is a core skill in social work. A participative practice of report writing would imply that the perspective of the children and parents is present in the reports. The results of our research show that a participatory approach to writing reports is not self‐evident. On the one hand, the practice of report writing shows a big diversity in the way the client's perspectives are given attention. On the other hand, the incorporation of the client's voice does not necessarily stand for a participatory approach because it may be used to strengthen professional views rather than clarify clients' perspectives. The case is made in such a way that a participatory approach of child and family social work demands more attention to the practice of writing reports.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is presented and understood as the primary reference point regarding questions of children's rights. However, the UNCRC is not a neutral instrument deployed to meet the rights of children: it embodies a specific perception of the child, childhood and citizenship. The interpretation of the UNCRC from the point of view of children's legal status emphasises the autonomy of children; the focus is on the rights that children possess. Conversely, the social-political interpretation of the UNCRC addresses the question of how the rights of children can be realised. It is suggested that distinguishing between these interpretations is essential with regard to questions of pedagogy and education.

Childhood research with children in poverty involves a diversity of dilemmas and complexities. In the context of a recent research project in Belgium, the authors attempt to embrace child poverty as a normative issue created a crisis of representation. In order to untangle this, they situate different methodological approaches in relation to the constructed epistemological windows on child poverty. The authors differentiate between research in which the authentic voice of children in poverty is represented, and research in which their lifeworld is interpreted through a lifeworld orientation perspective that pursues human dignity and social justice in our societies.

No abstract

This article discusses how urban public space impacts upon children's socialization. There are two points of view on the relationship between children and the urban neighbourhood, whether one considers the position of children in urban public space or the position of this environment in children's socialization. One can define the relationship in terms of the need to protect children against the perils of the city; this results in a spatial segregation of children into separate (play) spaces. Alternatively, one can argue that children should be able to move independently and safely through urban public space in order to make full use of the socializing opportunities offered by the city; this results in criteria for a child-friendly city. Leaving aside abstract images of the ideal neighbourhood for children, urban public space should also be considered as a co-educator. Theories of urban public space as a co-educator require empirical information about the way in which this space impacts upon existing processes of socialization and the citizenship of children. Three cases from the city of Ghent are presented to illustrate this discussion. Copyright (c) 2008 The Authors. Journal Compilation (c) 2008 Joint Editors and Blackwell Publishing Ltd.