2.1 Introduction

In order to develop the new framework, which includes research ‘with’ and ‘by’ children, this chapter begins to set out the background to the emergence of the New Childhood Studies movement, with its conceptualisation of children as active and capable social agents. Given that this conceptualisation of children and childhood is largely missing in applied linguistics, such a shift in perspective will be significant and will lead to opening up new opportunities for children, teachers and researchers.

First of all, this chapter offers a brief overview of how childhood has been conceptualised throughout history to provide a background to how the most widespread twentieth-century conception of the ‘natural, universal child’ emerged and got entrenched as the only way of looking at children. It was this conception, associated with developmental psychology, that was criticised by a sociological approach, eventually leading to the concept of the social child.

2.2 Who Is a Child?

Being a child is understood in a binary relationship with an adult and is considered a universal phenomenon. Despite the fact that ‘children’ and ‘adults’ are commonly used labels whose use seems largely unproblematic in everyday discourse, defining exactly who a child is as opposed to an adult turns out to be a surprisingly challenging task. Drawing a precise line between children and adults will in fact be impossible, especially in a way that works across different domains, such as education, law, biology, politics or economics. For example, young people in many countries cannot consent to participating in research until they are 18 years of age without their parents’ or guardians’ involvement, and yet they can vote, drive, drink alcohol or get married by the time they are 16 or 17.

A clear distinction between adult and child language learners is similarly difficult to draw in the language education literature, even though much discussion and research have targeted the significance of age itself in SLA. Studies focussed on the age factor have centred around questions such as what is the best age during childhood to start a second or foreign language, and whether there is a critical period (e.g. Pfenninger & Singleton, Reference Pfenninger and Singleton2017) for second/foreign language learning. If there is indeed a critical period for learning a foreign language, then what exact age brackets for onset and offset apply? These questions have generated complex literatures and lively debates but not clear-cut answers. In fact, even though everyone in SLA agrees that age does influence the process of language learning, it is difficult to tease out exactly how due to the complex interplay of many associated factors, such as the quantity and quality of input, levels of motivation and opportunities for practice and receiving feedback in a non-threatening environment. So, in a move away from precise age brackets, most scholars are in agreement that it is not age per se but the actual circumstances in the learning context that help children enjoy some advantages as language learners. In addition to the lack of definite answers in the Critical Period Hypothesis literature, there is also an ongoing debate about how to define young L2 learners as opposed to balanced bilingual learners who grow up with two languages from birth. Research in this area is buoyant, and although there are disagreements, the consensus is that L2 child learners are those who start a second/foreign language once their L1 grammatical system has been firmly established. Questions also arise about the top end of the age range. At what point is a L2 child learner no longer labelled as a child learner but instead turns into a (young) adult learner? Impossible to say exactly.

A precise definition with exact age brackets of who a child language learner is therefore eludes us, so the best we can do is apply somewhat arbitrary age brackets for pragmatic reasons. For example, conference organisers, publishers and research communities within applied linguists who are interested in the study of children as second/foreign language learners work with arbitrary age brackets, such as 5–12 years of age, and refer to older children as teenagers or adolescents. Different special interest groups and book series decide on their own definitions and age brackets, but these do not necessarily align with each other even within the same body of research literature.

As adults, we cannot know what it is like to be a child. At some level, of course, childhood is a familiar experience to us all. We all remember some of our early experiences vividly, and as we tell stories about ourselves, we constantly revisit and reinterpret our early memories, creating our unique childhood story. Many adults have children of their own, have close relatives or friends who have children, or work with children and thus claim some expertise in ‘knowing’ children. And yet, the paradox is that to know what it is like to be a child in current times is knowledge and first-hand experience that is firmly denied to all of us. The perspectives of children, today or at any time, are unique to them and are uniquely shaped by a specific time and place in both historical and cultural terms, sharing some but certainly not all features with previous generations of children.

Ultimately, such unique perspectives can only be gained from the children themselves. This underscores the need to gain insights from children about their lived experiences – in the case of this volume, putting the emphasis on children’s second/foreign language learning experiences. Such insights and accounts of experiences need to be given more weight in applied linguistics. Graue and Walsh (Reference Graue and Walsh1998) suggest that researching children and asking them about their views helps us to challenge our own dominant adult views. The authors urge us to find out and understand better what children think ‘and to keep finding it out, because if we do not find it out, someone will make it up’ (Graue & Walsh, Reference Graue and Walsh1998, p. xvi). For adults the temptation is to assume that they know everything best and thus must set all the rules and make all the decisions for children, often without finding things out first. As will be argued in this volume, the fact is we know very little about second language learning experiences from children’s own point of view.

What (we think) we know about children is rooted in our images and conceptions of childhood, which are also the products of historical, political and cultural influences as well as our own unique individual experiences as adults, parents, teachers and researchers. For example, what a teacher or researcher working with children believes and understands about children and childhood is determined by their personal and professional experiences mediated by contextual, political, cultural and historical circumstances and prevailing discourses about childhood. Such belief systems may be rendered unexplored, unless explicit and systematic reflection is encouraged by one’s training and professional development. Hence it is essential for every teacher and researcher working with children to reflect on their answers to these key questions:

• What is my image/conception of the child?

• What is my image/conception of the teacher/researcher (myself)?

Answers to these questions will begin to feed into decision making and increased reflexivity in any research project.

2.3 A Brief Historical Overview of Studying Children

Before examining the belief systems behind the proposed conception of this volume (i.e. the active, agentive child), it is useful here to pause and explore some historically significant conceptualisations. As Gittins (Reference Gittins and Kehily2009, p. 37) comments, images and conceptions of childhood have been changing across the ages, and ‘how that status is conceived by adults also varies and changes: sometimes it has been defined by physical and/or sexual maturity, sometimes by legal status, sometimes by chronological age alone’.

The earliest accounts of children can be traced back to the Middle Ages. Aries (Reference Aries1986) speculates that adults in ancient times perhaps were not so concerned about children or their development and wellbeing. It was only around the sixteenth century when children began to appear much more frequently in historical records of all kinds (e.g. paintings), reflecting profound cultural changes relating to the growth of interest in family life and domestic issues. Within the family unit, influenced by religious beliefs and teachings, parents began to devote attention to children by trying to educate them about good behaviour and morality through a very strict upbringing. This was influenced by the idea that children were evil and born with original sin and, consequently, needed education, control and discipline to achieve enlightenment. By the seventeenth century Locke challenged this conception by suggesting that children were neither good nor bad but simply the product of their environment, referring to them as blank slates (tabulae rasa). Then the view of childhood changed completely in the eighteenth century following the ideas promoted by Rousseau. Children became associated with the opposite of sin and evil, and it was suggested that adult society was the source of all sin and that children were in fact naturally good and innocent. In this way becoming an adult meant losing one’s childhood innocence.

By the nineteenth century, romantic constructions of childhood became the norm in wealthy middle-class families, with the idea that childhood is a special time to be protected and devoted to play and learning. At the same time, working-class childhoods were very different, with large-scale industrialisation and child labour becoming the norm for poor families. Towards the very end of the nineteenth century, mass schooling was introduced with the main purpose of teaching the poor, helping to keep crime rates down and providing moral education to the masses, referred to as savages (Walkerdine, Reference Walkerdine and Kehily2009). Historically, the introduction of mass schooling coincided with the rise of Darwinism and the idea that children could be studied in terms of an evolutionary process on their journey of development from being savages to becoming civilised rational adults. ‘Childhood in this way became a developmental process in which adaptation to the environment was understood as a natural stage-wise progression towards a rational and civilized adulthood, which was to be the basis for liberal government’ (Walkerdine, Reference Walkerdine and Kehily2009, p. 115).

Interestingly, mass schooling was put in place as the mirror image of factories in the growth of industrialisation. Children were divided into classes according to their age and instruction was put in place, with the bell ringing for breaks just like in factories. This basic image of schools is still prevailing in our times, even though much criticism has been raised about these practices that many see as outdated. Schools throughout the twentieth century became important places for research. Children were seen as the future of nation states, and large-scale research on health, nutrition and education were put in place with the aim of protecting and nourishing childhood and better understanding the process of growing up. Based on such large-scale research, education authorities in different countries made decisions about what to teach, how and for how long. In order to gain insights into the learning mechanisms in childhood, school-based research focussed on what was considered typical and normal in terms of cognitive abilities for various age groups. This was based on the underlying assumption that childhood and development were controllable, following a clear chronological stage-like process, and with the right approach to teaching, competent, rational adult citizens would be created.

2.4 Developmental Psychology

By the 1920s childhood research became firmly established, and a new field was born: developmental psychology. The idea of development is historically significant in the age of Darwinism with its paradigm organised around the metaphor of growth and, accordingly, orderly stages of development. In developmental psychology data are collected from large numbers of children to encourage comparisons, standardisation and normalisation. The average abilities of children of a certain age performing on the same task can result in identifying what is ‘normal’, and this becomes the basis for setting curricula and instructional materials for various age groups.

The core idea in the developmental psychology paradigm is that children are only partially rational, becoming more and more rational with age until they become fully functioning adults. Consequently, childhood is always understood as an incomplete state of ‘becoming’ and is seen as preparation for adulthood, which is in turn associated with the finished/complete state of ‘being’. It is the process that describes what happens on the journey from childhood to adulthood that constitutes the focus of research interest, rather than the particularities of any one individual child. Piaget’s work is a good example of an attempt to describe the journey from childhood to adulthood. His well-known universal stage development theory addresses in detail how children acquire the rules of formal logic and the Kantian categories of space, time and causality through four universal stages. These stages always follow in the same order, and no stage can be skipped. Piaget’s theory, though immensely influential and impactful, has been widely criticised as reductionist because the tasks were stripped of cultural and contextual influences, leaving the young child confused about the adult’s intentions and the true meaning of the tasks. Yet despite this criticism, Piaget’s pivotal influence cannot be underestimated today, even though the parallel alternative influence of social constructivism promoted by Vygotsky and his followers have also gained just as much ground.

The establishment of developmental psychology as a new discipline at the beginning of the twentieth century has been the source of much evidence relating to what we know about children and childhood today, with its methods and approaches having been mirrored across various disciplines and fields of study devoted to children, including applied linguistics. As discussed above, the predominant approach to research with children in developmental psychology consists of observation and experimental methods since these are believed to yield ‘objective evidence’. Typically, asking children’s views and trusting their accounts are approaches that do not sit well in this paradigm because of the assumption that children lack the ability to reflect on their experiences, are easily distracted and do not have the cognitive or linguistic skills to talk about their lives, and that what they say may not be coherent and trustworthy. As a consequence, children’s voices have traditionally been muted in research (Hardman, Reference Hardman1973).

Developmental psychology as a way of conceptualising children and childhood, with its hugely important body of knowledge amassed over many decades, is a ‘particularly powerful story of childhood because it plausibly accounts for the fixed biological nature of development, making it difficult for us to view childhood any differently’ (Wyness, Reference Wyness2019, p. 17). Indeed, conceptions of childhood originating in developmental psychology are accepted as universal, and the way families, schools and the whole of society view and treat children is fully consistent with this conception.

2.5 The Emergence of the New Sociology of Childhood

Criticism of the traditional paradigm and developmental psychology started building up in the second half of the twentieth century. By the 1970s research approaches began to diversify, with attention moving away from experiments while the significance of context in research began to be addressed and Vygotsky’s influence also increased. Margaret Donaldson (Reference Donaldson1986) and her colleagues’ work, which re-appraised some of Piaget’s claims about younger children and their limited ability to solve problems and reflect on their experiences, cast doubt on about the stage-like development theory. For example, questions were raised about the context of these experiments and the actual language use of the experimenters as well as the types of scenarios presented to the children. When the same Piagetian experiments were subsequently rerun with tasks presented in a more familiar context and with adults using more natural language, young children’s performance improved, indicating that the original judgements of children lacking logical thought at a young age were too harsh. Parallel to this, in sociology more individual accounts of socialisation, such as Mead’s (Reference Mead1934) work were produced, and a gradual realisation slowly began to grow that children should be listened to and respected as individuals and competent meaning makers in their own right.

The most important movement that explicitly suggested an alternative to the traditional paradigm was called New Childhood Studies, which began to gain ground in the late 1980s and early 1990s. This sociological approach to childhood, in stark contrast to developmental psychology, promoted a new perspective that some refer to as an entirely new paradigm. The main tenet of this new approach is that children are ‘competent social actors’ who are worthy of study in their own right rather than just as future adults in the making. New Childhood Studies is fiercely critical of all approaches objectifying children and contends that children should be studied not just as ‘becomings’ (i.e. situated somewhere en route to adulthood) but as social ‘beings’ (Qvortrup, Reference Qvortrup1994) in their own right. Some scholars also argue that this new approach is more ethical in the sense that it is more contextual and bottom-up, rather than top-down (i.e., it intentionally looks up to children rather than looking down on them). Such a bottom-up approach is more respectful and allows for a more open-ended, exploratory stance in the quest to understand children.

The sociological approach to studying children embraces a conception of childhood that sees children as responsible, competent, resourceful, and active in shaping their own lives. Accordingly, adult observations and accounts of children’s experiences can only ever give us a partial understanding of children, and it is now widely accepted across various disciplines that children can and should contribute their views and that these views are worthwhile (Fraser et al., Reference Fraser, Flewitt, Hammersley, Clark, Flewitt, Hammersley and Robb2014). There is also mounting empirical evidence to suggest that children can be trusted to provide reliable accounts of their experiences and can assist adults in a variety of different roles. In fact, children’s accounts of their own experiences are essential, and adults cannot understand their life worlds without consulting them (Rinaldi, Reference Rinaldi2005). In current sociological approaches to studying children, the emphasis is on understanding children’s views and experiences from their own point of view, adhering to the principle that those are worthy of study in their own right and can usefully complement adult insights. As we will see in the upcoming chapters, even though children’s ability to share their perspectives is now widely accepted in theory, the challenge is how such perspectives can be elicited and acted on by adults.

James et al. (Reference James, Jenks and Prout1998) argue that, despite the widely accepted need to listen to children, traditional conceptions of childhood continue to influence if not dominate our thinking by being deeply embedded in our everyday attitudes to children. These traditional conceptions (see Table 2.1) make up what James et al. (Reference James, Jenks and Prout1998, p. 9) refer to as ‘conventional wisdom’ shaping our shared consciousness about childhood. The lasting effect is observable cumulatively and clearly traceable in practices, attitudes and even policy decisions today. Many of these conceptions are reminiscent of historical approaches and even theories of childhood proposed centuries ago. For example, institutional practices that promote tight control originate from the first conception (the evil child), assuming that without such control institutions such as schools would become chaotic and anarchical places.

Armed with a new sociological conception of childhood, two eminent scholars, James and Prout (Reference James and Prout1990), in a milestone publication identified the key features of this new ‘paradigm’ by making the following claims (pp. 8–9):

1. (1) Childhood is a social construction: it is nether universal nor natural but a specific structural and cultural component of many societies.

2. (2) Childhood is one variable of social analysis, and it is intertwined with class, gender and ethnicity; childhood is a variable rather than a universal phenomenon.

3. (3) Children’s social relationships and cultures are worthy of study in their own right (not through an adult lens).

4. (4) Children are active in the constructions of their own social lives and those around them and the societies they live in.

5. (5) Ethnography is a useful methodology; it allows children a more direct voice and participation.

6. (6) To proclaim a new paradigm is to engage in reconstructing childhood.

In this way, childhood is seen not just as a universal phenomenon but instead as a social construction unfolding in unique contexts. If childhood is a social construction, then it is just another social variable and, as such, dynamically interacts with other categories, such as gender, class, ethnicity and educational affordances. Childhood in societies is defined following largely arbitrary culturally and socially set conventions (James & Prout, Reference James and Prout1990), but the key social mechanism that helps to constitute children’s position in society is law. It is through law, rather than simply due to the ageing process, that children in fact achieve adulthood. The categorical stage of adulthood is therefore also arbitrarily fixed by social practices of custom and law. Lacking full personhood is what makes children different from adults, and this leads to institutional separation. Children are rigidly controlled by restricting where they can be present. As Wyness comments (Reference Wyness2019, p. 171) one of the ‘most powerful norms of Western childhood is that children be in the right place at the right time’.

To document this process of social construction, James and Prout (Reference James and Prout2004) suggest that ethnographic approaches might be particularly suitable in research when working with children. These methods lend themselves naturally to inviting children to have a ‘direct voice’ and more active ‘participation’. Mayall (Reference Mayall2002) proposes that the new paradigm intends to study children in a more contextualised way, by looking ‘up’ to them, treating them as actors and knowers, rather than looking down at them. This is a radically different approach from the conventional/traditional approaches, which treated children as subordinates from a symbolically higher adult vantage point. Respecting the child’s voice, however, ‘strikes at the heart of conventional authority relationships between children and the adults who regulate their lives’ (Woodhead, Reference Woodhead2005, p. 92) both at school and outside school. Quite how this tension can be navigated will be revisited in the upcoming chapters.

In essence, a socially constructed childhood emphasises the unique trajectory of each and every child and directs researchers’ attention to the multitudes of childhoods around us rather than the universal, typical child. Modern Western childhood is highly structured and is centred around the home, the school, the classroom and the playground, as well as increasingly around online environments such as gaming, using tablet devices and smartphones, and interacting with peers virtually. However, other childhoods (e.g. those in parts of the Global South) can be remarkably different, with children having to earn money to make ends meet or look after younger siblings to support their wider families in addition to or even instead of school (López-Gopar, Reference López-Gopar2016). Many children’s lives around the world are in stark contrast to the normalised images of Western childhood, including children living on the street, in inner-city slums, in conflict zones or on the move to seek new homes as unaccompanied child refugees. Such a variety of childhood experiences has certainly not been fully reflected in second language education research, where the focus has been largely confined to more readily accessible contexts in the West. This harks back to Chapter 1 and the question about who our research is for and what it should be about (Ortega, Reference Ortega2005). In our field, with the increasing number of children learning L2 English in various contexts, attention also needs to be directed to the diversity of children’s experiences. English language learning opportunities for children range from contexts where well-trained teachers work with small groups of learners using modern technology and materials to those where teachers have no formal teaching qualifications, no access to suitable materials, and where classrooms may be as large as catering for 100–200 students. The experiences, interests and needs of children across these contexts will be remarkably different, and therefore more bottom-up insights from all these contexts are urgently needed if we want to better understand child second language learning processes.

2.6 The Social Child: A ‘Rights-Bearing’ Citizen

The emergence of the New Childhood Studies coincided and has been bolstered by international political developments, in particular by the 1989 publication of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is considered one of the most important international documents relating to children. The Convention will be discussed in the upcoming chapters, so here I am just introducing it briefly, outlining its purpose, content and overall impact.

The Convention is an extension of Universal Human Rights Document, with fifty-four articles devoted to children’s rights. It is an important advocacy tool that promotes children’s welfare as a matter of justice rather than charity (Veerman, Reference Veerman1992, p. 184), and it is also the first document that considers children as subjects in their own right rather than simply objects of adult intervention. Accordingly, children have the right to self-determination (Article 1), to non-discrimination (Article 2), to decisions that follow their best interest (Article 3), to life, survival and development (Article 6), to freedom to participate (Article 12) and to see, receive and communicate information relevant to their lives (Articles 13 & 17).

There are three kinds of rights declared in the Convention, often referred to as the three Ps. These include provision, protection and participation rights. The content overall is comprehensive, containing general rights, linguistic rights, rights to protective measures, rights concerning civil status, rights to preserve identity, to be reunited with family and rights to health, basic services and social security. The Convention also addresses the rights of children in special circumstances, such as refugee children and indigenous groups, and it covers regulations on adoption and the prohibition of the recruitment of child soldiers.

Wyness comments that it is a crucial document in ‘establishing a social ontology for children’ (Reference Wyness2019, p. 207), with Article 4 stating that children should be seen as equals alongside adults.

The Convention on the Rights of the Child has been ratified by most countries in the world, and many states have incorporated it into national law. The first declaration dates back to 1924 and the second to 1959, but it was only in the 1970s that work on the current document finally started (Freeman, Reference Freeman, Qvortrup, Corsaro and Honig2011), and it took over ten years to agree its content. There were several areas of contention, most notably around the concept of freedom of thought and religion, but also debates were devoted to the basic definition of the child, the right of the unborn child, traditional cultural practices and children’s duties to parents which were seen as socially and culturally acceptable in some contexts but not in others (Freeman, Reference Freeman, Qvortrup, Corsaro and Honig2011).

It is mainly the rights around ‘participation’ that have been taken up, explored and interpreted by those interested in the New Sociology of Childhood, and it is the concept of participation that is central to the active children’s roles proposed in applied linguistics research. By all accounts, Article 12 is the most widely quoted section, emphasising children’s rights to voice their opinions about important matters in their lives. It [requires states to] ‘assure to the child, who is capable of forming his or her own views, the rights to express those views freely, on all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due consideration in accordance with the age and maturity of the child’ (Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989).

Whenever children are enabled to become active partners or collaborators in research (i.e. where research ‘with’ children or ‘by’ children rather than ‘on’ children is mentioned), it is this article of the Convention that is often referred to, citing children’s right to have their voices heard and highlighting the legal imperative that children’s views about all aspects of their lives need to be taken seriously. Exactly how this imperative plays out in different types of research involving children in more or less active roles will vary, but the core principle is associated with the adult’s obligation to consider how a rights-based approach can be implemented in practical terms in their own local circumstances.

The Convention articles are open to interpretation, and different readers and researchers have taken different views on the key messages. Some argue that children’s participation in research is not in fact mentioned in the document explicitly, and for many it is not considered to be an important matter at all, especially compared to other needs or rights. Others point to the dual emphasis in the document on children’s voices as well as their parents’ and other adults’ voices (see more about this in Chapter 7). As Hammersley (Reference Hammersley2015, p. 572) argues, the imperative to seek children’s perspectives about important matters is framed with the caveat that adults need to first make judgements about children’s competences ‘in accordance with the age and maturity of the child’. Conflicting interpretations of the document have led to continuing debates and discussions about the document and its articles.

While the Convention is an important international document, its actual implementation is certainly patchy. A continuing difficulty is that different societies have different understandings of childhood, parent–child relationships, education, the role of punishment or child labour (Freeman, Reference Freeman, Qvortrup, Corsaro and Honig2011). A common criticism of the Convention is that suffers from a Western bias and does not take the reality of childhoods in the Global South into account. Ironically, there is no evidence that any children or groups of children were consulted in the construction of the document, and as such, therefore, it is an adult-initiated document entirely, although steps have been taken since to involve children in the work that is associated with its implementation internationally.

For those countries signed up to the document, there is a monitoring mechanism in place whereby ministries of education or those national institutions responsible for children are required to submit reports every five years to the UN to demonstrate compliance and to report on progress with issues related to the Convention. However, there is no mechanism of enforcement, and in reality little progress has been made in promoting children’s rights internationally. For many, the Convention remains a political token and a moral document only. Nonetheless, the imperative to listen to children and respect their rights is now enshrined in law in most countries, and all adults accordingly need to work towards finding opportunities to respect the Convention principles in their practice with children. Even though the document is open to different interpretations, its basic message that children have rights is well accepted. Therefore, in applied linguistics, as in other disciplines, adults working with children need to engage with the document and its articles and need to reflect on their personal interpretations of these rights and how they are to be acted on and implemented in everyday practice.

Taking children’s views seriously following the Convention is also directly linked to children’s overall wellbeing and social justice concerns. Kumpulainen and Ouakrim-Soivio (Reference Kumpulainen, Ouakrim-Soivio and Eckhoff2019, p. 184) argue that listening to children, ‘their meanings, experiences, opinions, and perspectives in relation to their life worlds, creates avenues for educators to learn about children, and hence to support their holistic learning and wellbeing’. In the context of second/foreign language education, participation refers to the right of children to fair participation in decisions about their educational and linguistic rights. Including children’s voices in educational discourses can also promote educational equity and fair opportunities (Kumpulainen et al., Reference Kumpulainen, Lipponen, Hilppo and Mikkola2014). Kellett (Reference Kellett2010a) claims that high levels of child involvement in research lead to the potential for transformation and for empowering and emancipating marginalised groups.

Quennerstedt and Moody (Reference Quennerstedt and Moody2020) argue that for educational stakeholders (researchers or teachers) it is important to understand the messages of the Convention regarding children’s rights to education. Three different types of rights are important: rights to education, rights in education and rights through education. Rights to education at a basic level refers to accessing good-quality education, while rights in education deals with how rights are respected in educational institutions, and finally, rights through education refers to how children’s attitudes and knowledge can be affected by rights-infused environments. Quennerstedt and Moody (Reference Quennerstedt and Moody2020) recommend that the following questions must be asked in every school:

• Do our schools secure children’s participation rights?

• How is Article 12 implemented in our schools?

• Is children’s decision making given due weight?

• How do children understand their own participation rights?

• Are participation rights central to learning/teaching?

• How are children affected by environments that respect their rights?

The authors suggest that, overall, opportunities for children in schools to exercise their rights are still rare and that children have little scope to influence educational institutions. Teachers’ knowledge, as well as the actual enactment of children’s rights, is weak, and there is a general scepticism about teaching children as rights holders.

In UK schools, for example, a desire to develop participation rights and give children a voice has led to the establishment of school councils. Children represent their peers and hold office in preparation for adult life as citizens. A major criticism of school councils, however, is that even though the adults present the school council as participatory, in reality it is often only symbolic, with low levels of consultation. Wyness (Reference Wyness, Baraldi and Cockburn2018) argues that consultation revolves around specific events only and that engagement wanes in between these. Being a member of the school council is also considered a privileged position, only available to a selected few, thus implying that not all children’s participation is equally important. In addition, the views of children selected to be included tend to come from those who are highly articulate. This opens the question of whether current methods of participation for children and young people in the school environment favours an elite, conformist section of school society and in this respect are merely tokenistic. Kellett (Reference Kellett, Clark, Flewitt, Hammersley and Robb2014) concurs that, paradoxically, in school councils children are being invited to speak up in a context where virtually nothing is under their control.

2.7 Childhood Studies from the 1990s to Current Times and Children as Future Makers

At the beginning of this chapter I discussed the gradual emergence of Childhood Studies and elaborated on how it developed its scholarship in an attempt to oppose the previous paradigm (i.e. developmental psychology and a traditional view of children as passive ‘becomings’). Although these ideas were introduced as progressive, more in tune with contemporary conceptions of childhood, it is important to note that Childhood Studies as a movement has been around for a long time; it has naturally evolved since its beginnings and has encountered its own challenges.

Over the last thirty or more years, Childhood Studies has moved away from earlier sentimental views of children to more balanced views, acknowledging that children’s active participation is not a panacea and that their active contributions must always be carefully contextualised.

James and Prout’s (Reference James and Prout1990) original criticism of the traditional approaches and developmental psychology was harsh for a good reason: they wanted to break away from what was the only way to view children and make a convincing case for a new paradigm. Looking back, many would argue that their criticism of developmental psychology was perhaps too strong and that when they completely dismissed traditional approaches, they went too far (Spyrou, Reference Spyrou2018). They rejected claims about the naturalness and universal aspect of childhoods and went as far as to say that experimental methods were inadequate to do justice to children’s rich lives and experiences. At the same time Qvortrup’s (Reference Qvortrup1994) work drew attention to the fact that children were considered as ‘becomings’ even though they were a permanent feature of all societies.

The early work by James and Prout, Qvortrup and their colleagues inspired a great deal of work exploring children’s views, opinions and life worlds in different discipline areas, with innovative methodologies illustrating how children acted as social agents. However, despite more work accumulating in various disciplines illustrating what children were saying and believing, there was also a gradual realisation that the movement was producing more of the same thing. James and Prout began to acknowledge that the divide between the natural and the social child was perhaps too sharp, calling for more balanced approaches. Critical voices also addressed the rather romantic ideals upheld by scholars in some of the early work, and a view was widely acknowledged that more critical approaches were needed that intersected discipline areas and connected work to ongoing philosophical debates and dialogue in the literature outside the study of children and childhood (Carnevale, Reference Carnevale2020; Facca et al., Reference Facca, Gladstone and Teachman2020).

Conceptions of children and childhood are changing fast, and they continue to be shaped dynamically by contemporary events. It is a widely held view that modern children grow up too fast. The premature loss of innocence in childhood, the early sexualisation and commercialisation of childhoods, and children’s (excessive) use of modern technology are often cited as negative aspects of growing up today. Children’s lives are more highly controlled than ever by levels of surveillance never known in history before. Increasing control and surveillance are required to protect children, but these measures are starkly at odds with the image of the active, responsible and capable child.

Current modern childhoods have also been described in a positive way, as remarkably proactive, visible and forceful. Appadurai (Reference Appadurai2013) talks about ‘children as future makers’ who embody a dynamic, fresh kind of agency that is capable of driving new initiatives. For example, children recently attracted a great deal of attention as a result of the international progressive resistance movement around topics such as the climate crises. Holmberg and Alvinius (Reference Holmberg and Alvinius2020, p. 88) mention the emergence of ‘children’s progressive resistance’ in the context of the global influence of Greta Thunberg. Greta herself started her awareness-raising campaign about environmental issues by sitting outside the Swedish parliament building during school hours in 2018 and 2019, subsequently becoming an internationally recognised climate activist who has since addressed UN Climate Change conferences and recorded TED talks and was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2019. Her activities have inspired children and young people all over the world to attend school strikes, with the most comprehensive global strike having taken place in March 2019, involving 1.6 million people in 2,000 locations.

Up until now children’s political interest has always been considered negligible, but the recent international proactive movement indicates that children’s knowledge and levels of awareness may be transforming rapidly. Greta has set an example of a loud and bold child voice, openly challenging world leaders, politicians and large companies, blaming the whole system of capitalism and demanding concrete steps for change immediately. There is very little research on children’s resistance to global issues to date, but thanks to the opportunities offered by rapid social media, this new form of global activity has started to grow and will likely continue to do so. The positive, forceful, proactive child image is fully in line with the proposed active participation of children in research and adds a fresh hue to the active agentive conception of children and childhood.

2.8 Towards a New Framework in Working with Children in Applied Linguistics

Having reviewed the background to the emergence of Childhood Studies and its main mission and focus, alongside the principles advocated by the Convention, it is time to consider what this will mean for the extended research framework when it comes to child participants in applied linguistics (see Figure 2.1). Here the key components of the new framework will be outlined, to be further elaborated on at the end of Chapter 4 after examining different participation types and contextual affordances in the interdisciplinary literature (Chapters 3–4).

Figure 2.1 Key elements in the extended framework of research involving children in second language education

The research any adult can undertake can be categorised as research ‘on’, ‘about’, ‘with’ or ‘by’ children (Figure 2.2; see Chapter 1; Kellett, Reference Kellett2010a; Mayne & Howitt, Reference Mayne and Howitt2015).

Figure 2.2 Types of Research: ‘On’, ‘about’, ‘with’ and ‘by’ (on a continuum)

Based on the adult researchers’ intentions, beliefs, values and conceptions of childhood and children, whether they embrace the rights-based approach to working with children (as enshrined in the Convention) or whether they have a choice about the type of research questions they are exploring and the kind of epistemology and corresponding methods they are comfortable with, they can place themselves somewhere on this continuum between research ‘on’ and ‘by’ children.

Research ‘on’ and ‘about’ children, although separate categories, both represent studies where children’s responses and contributions are interpreted from the adults’ point of view alone and the child participants have no input into the shape and focus of the research project. Typically, studies ‘on’ children rely on adult observations, experiments or interventions of different kinds where tests or tasks are administered and children’s responses are elicited to be counted or measured and often compared to some kind of a benchmark. This approach is broadly consistent with the passive object status of children. As passive objects, children are routinely assumed not to be able to understand or to be interested in the purpose of research and to lack the ability to offer any useful insights. Parents/guardians will decide about and consent to their children’s participation, and the children themselves are often not consulted at all or not fully consulted.

Research ‘about’ children is still conducted completely through the adult lens, but these studies are often smaller in scale and qualitative in nature, allowing for a more explicit interest on the part of the adult researcher to explore the unique trajectories of individual children. In their attempt to understand children’s behaviours, researchers might elicit multiple types of data in a longitudinal design. While this approach is likely to yield rich data about the children involved, their participation is still defined and controlled by adults following adult judgements about their ability based on assumed competence. Although in these studies children are more likely to be aware that research is going on, and their consent or at least assent might be sought, all aspects of the research are nonetheless conceptualised and presented from an adult perspective.

In child second language education, a typical study that would fall into the first category (i.e. research on children) would be one where, for example, a vocabulary test is administered to a large group of children before and after a treatment of introducing a new method of vocabulary teaching to see if the treatment has been effective. In this type of study children are assumed not to be interested in the purpose of the research. The second type of study, research ‘about’ children, is likely to be a more qualitative study and might, for example, explore a specific group of children’s language development by observing/recording their talk, analysing their writing over time and getting the children to reflect on what new language they think they have learnt. Research ‘about’ children might use a variety of tools to gain deeper understanding of the learning trajectories of each child and would attempt to understand the unique experiences of different children in terms of their second language development, but with regard to how such a study is planned, conceptualised, undertaken, analysed and made sense of, it is still entirely adult dominated and the children’s input is still non-existent, just like in the previous category.

Both studies ‘on’ and ‘about’ children treat them as passive participants, that is, data sources only.

Naturally, these two types of studies make up the vast majority of the second language education literature with child participants (see more in Chapter 5). Studies with children’s more active involvement have been rare, with the consequence that children’s roles and status in research in applied linguistics simply has not been explicitly problematised (Pinter, Reference Pinter2014). The traditional framework with its exclusive focus on research ‘on’ and ‘about’ children is a natural consequence of the lack of attention devoted to children as language learners in SLA and the kinds of priorities that have been pursued to date.

The new elements in the framework point to participatory opportunities from less to more participation and are labelled as undertaking research ‘with’ children or even ‘by’ children (i.e. children themselves initiating and completing their own research projects). While these new roles present great opportunities for both the children and the adult facilitators involved, the complexities surrounding these roles in terms of constraints of various kinds are numerous, and these will be further explored with the help of illustrative studies from a range of discipline areas in Chapters 3 and 4.

In the category of research ‘with’ children, a whole range of active child roles are possible (from weaker to stronger types of participation), and these are often labelled differently in different studies. Weaker roles allow for minimal involvement, whereas stronger roles are more reminiscent of partnerships. Co-researcher roles are qualitatively different from the roles that fully fledged child researchers play. Kellett (Reference Kellett2010a, p. 50) explains that the difference between co-researchers and researchers is in the ‘size of contribution, ownership and responsibility’. Using the metaphor of a sandwich, she suggests that co-researchers tend to make up the filling only while child researchers represent the whole sandwich, including the bread as well (i.e. having responsibility for all stages of the research, from beginning to end, albeit under adult guidance).

Alderson (Reference Alderson, Christensen and James2008) highlights three different ways in which children can become familiar with research. The first, most basic step is via exposure to research at school. This is the practising stage, when children are undertaking a project as a pedagogic activity. The second possibility is that children become interested and involved in a research project that is led by adults and are offered the opportunity to take on various co-researcher roles. In this scenario children help to plan questions, analyse data and report evidence, and over time their involvement may increase. Finally, some may decide to undertake their own research initiated by themselves into an issue of interest to them. This suggests that teaching research skills at school and encouraging children to undertake research at school is the most meaningful preparation for projects that the children might one day want to initiate outside school, for example in their community. School-based research may start from a pedagogically focussed set of activities initiated by the adult, yet over time, in some cases, it may have the potential to develop into the type of activity that Kim (Reference Kim2016) labels as more ‘authentic’ and more in line with the core principle of participation as citizens in society at large. Children’s understanding of what research is, what it is for and what it can achieve will have the potential to thrive if they can be involved in projects at school and have frequent opportunities to take more and more responsibility while the adult facilitation is carefully phased out.

Becoming a researcher takes time and training (Kellett, Reference Kellett2010a), and it is certainly not something that would be feasible and of interest to all children everywhere. But in some contexts, some children may take an interest in this role as a result of working in co-researcher roles first. At the beginning children may be able to and interested in contributing to adult-initiated research in a consulting role, such as by giving advice on a data collection tool designed by the adult. At a later stage, they may contribute more substantially by, for example, providing input into the research questions, collecting data from their peers or collaborating with the adult teacher or researcher on the data analysis. At the most advanced end of the scale, some children in some contexts may become interested and inspired to undertake their own investigations. Chapters 3, 4 and 6 will elaborate on the opportunities and challenges in such studies.

Research ‘with’ and ‘by’ children involves varying degrees of involvement and commitment by the children, but all these projects have the potential to promote democratic, more horizontal relationships between children and adults. While the adults’ roles change from studies categorised as ‘with’ and ‘by’, there is always a focus on listening to children, information sharing and ongoing dialogue. Researching with children and ultimately helping them to undertake their own research relies on inherent respect for children’s capacities and is consistent with an active subject role or social actor status rather than a passive status (as in the traditional framework).

As Mayne and Howitt (Reference Mayne and Howitt2015, p. 37) comment, ‘research that upholds the rights-based ideals of the Convention does not just happen by chance, but requires strategic choices at both planning and implementation stages of a research project’.

From the adults’ point of view the research can be ‘on’, ‘about’, ‘with’ and ‘by’ children, but in terms of the children’s own roles, they can be categorised as objects, subjects, social actors and active participants (Table 2.2).

Across different disciplines, evidence has been accumulating that some children in some circumstances (although not all) are able and keen to undertake research and that the process of researching can be beneficial to both children and the adults who work with or alongside them. Kellett (Reference Kellett2010a, p. 105) comments that ‘children observe with different eyes, ask different questions – they sometimes ask questions that adults do not even think of – have different concerns and immediate access to a peer culture where adults are outsiders. The research agendas children prioritise, the research questions they frame and the way in which they collect data are also quintessentially different from adults.’

2.9 Children as Social Actors in Second Language Education Research

In applied linguistics, what is our image of the child language learner, and what roles can they take in research? What is the purpose and the goal of our research, and who are the beneficiaries? Depending on the answers to these questions, different adult researchers will approach their work differently, but it is important that such questions are raised for reflection in our field, and every teacher as well as every researcher working with children must consider their responses. Bucknall (Reference Bucknall2014, p. 82) reminds us that the opportunity for children to learn about research and the possibility of becoming more active participants in research alongside adults is ‘in the gift of’ the adult researcher or teacher (i.e. children are not in a position to come forward, inform the adult and claim their rights to participation).

The Convention and its rights-based approach to working with children, even if difficult to implement and open to debate, cannot be ignored in applied linguistics. A commitment to listening to children, taking their views and opinions seriously, and inviting them to participate actively in research is relevant and important in language learning as well as other disciplines. It is therefore important for all teachers, teacher trainers and researchers to raise questions and reflect on:

• How do I see the children’s role and status in my own teaching and research?

• What is the purpose of my research, and who benefits?

• How can I understand more about the children’s experiences of language learning from their point of view?

• How can I listen better to the children’s views and opinions in my teaching and research?

• How can I involve them in more active roles in my research?

2.10 Conclusion

This chapter has introduced the concept of the social child and explained how and why such a focus emerged in the literature. Taking children’s views and perspectives seriously in research is associated with new ways of working with them. Listening to and acting on their voices in applied linguistics will lead to a better understanding of children’s life worlds, their needs, interests and ever-changing priorities with regard to language learning and beyond. Understanding their perspectives will lay the foundation for effective partnerships in research with children. In order to develop the tools and approaches to work in this way, the next two chapters will explore the interdisciplinary literature to review key concepts, such as voice, agency and participation (Chapter 3), and educational philosophies and structures that promote child-centredness, children’s voice and rights-based approaches (Chapter 4).