Defining an agenda for the geography of children: review and prospect

Abstract

There is still only a limited development of a solidly grounded social and cultural geography prepared to conceptualize children as a neglected social grouping undergoing various forms of sociospatial marginalization. Given the focus and momentum of the 'new' cultural geography, we contend that this is an apposite time to define an agenda for the geography of children, which not only takes into account earlier studies which can inform contemporary debate, largely drawn from an environmental psychology tradition, but which also recognizes the interface between sociology, anthropology and cultural studies and draws upon important work being undertaken by feminist and critical geographers. To date, much of the research on the geography of children has been blighted by fragmentation, narrow disciplinary perspectives and methodologies which do not sufficiently engage themselves with the lifeworld of children in the 'here and now'. In this article we propose a working agenda based upon a set of seven generic propositions which highlight different aspects of children's relationship with their physical and built environment, beyond the home, school and playground. Our emphasis in this review is on work which examines the experiences of children and how they 'see the world' around them. We recognize, however, that part of what children see are structures which constrain them. These may include the adult values imprinted on the physical and built landscapes in which they live, or the social constraints of the adult gaze. We argue that research on the lives of children should not just be reported for its own sake, but should lead to outcomes which encourage empowerment, participation and self-determination consistent with levels of competence.

‘The terrible twos’: Gaining control in the nursery?

“…While there has been increasing interest in the social geographies of childhood in recent years (see, for example, Valentine, 1997aValentine, , 1997bMatthews and Limb, 1999;Holloway and Valentine, 2000a;McKendrick et al, 2000aMcKendrick et al, , 2000bSmith and Barker, 2000a, 2001, early childhood has been somewhat neglected, perhaps due to 'our' general underestimation of the abilities and social competence of young children and the perceived methodological difficulties in engaging with them, despite the growing literature on research with young children (see Corsaro, 1997;Cousins, 1999;Clark and Moss, 2001;Lancaster and Broadbent, 2003). Popular terms for young children imply that they are insufficient-'pre-school children', 'under-fives', 'under-threes'-or incapable-'toddlers'- (Daniel and Ivatts, 1998).…”

Experiencing a Place: Karlovac as an Older Teenagers’ Daily Environment

“…Summarising research results (see also Lynch and Banerjee, 1976;Travlou, 2003;Schwab and Standler, 2004;Travlou, Owens, Thompson, Maxwell, 2008, Matthews and Limb, 1999, Chawla, 2002, we can conclude that places that teenagers avoid, or which they fear, are associated as a rule with one or a combination of the following characteristics:…”

Are There Politics in Childhood?

“…First, there exists an extensive literature discussing children's roles and agencies in local, national and supra-national policy making (e.g. Lee, 1999;Matthews & Limb, 1999;Such & Walker, 2005;White & Choudhury, 2007;Percy-Smith & Thomas, 2009;Skelton, 2010). Following the paradigm of the 'new' socio-cultural childhood studies (cf.…”