In true democracies, everyone is able to vote. EVEYONE. Regardless of any personal characteristics. There would be ways of understanding and knowing everyone’s political preferences in order to form a stable and well performing political organization. Some individuals may require more advanced methods of expressing their preferences. Those methods must be provided equitably by the political process and institutions.
I’ve recently had two presentation proposals accepted for the upcoming Canadian Evaluation Conference in Montreal in May. I’m very excited to be presenting on the following topics:
- Involving Youth in a Participatory and Developmental Evaluation
- Obtaining young children’s assent to participate in research
Programs and services designed for youth have traditionally excluded the participation and voice of its main stakeholders and beneficiaries. This often results in poorly designed interventions that further exclude youth and misses opportunities for empowerment.
A youth participatory and developmental evaluation was conducted for a youth mentorship program designed for young community leaders that have started their own social enterprises in downtown Toronto. Youth in the program were encouraged to participate in the evaluation through various methods including obtaining youth assent, reflective discussions, creating accountability systems, and assuring confidentiality and appropriate use of youth voices. This paper presents the lessons learned using various strategies and approaches to working with youth, as well as, the systematic and ethical strategies of maximizing participation and appropriate use of evaluation findings.
Youth participatory evaluation is quickly growing as a new field of inquiry that promises to strengthen and enhance programs and services designed for youth. Involving youth in the design, implementation and reporting of evaluation activities can substantial increase the relevance, accuracy and impact of the evaluation findings by ensuring that the main stakeholders have a meaningful and authentic role in the design and continual improvement of programs and services designed for them. In addition to creating and disseminating more relevant and accurate evaluation findings, youth participatory evaluation can be more ethical than the many traditional research methods used in program evaluation.
A youth participatory and developmental evaluation was conducted for a youth mentorship program designed for young community leaders that have started their own social enterprises in downtown Toronto. To properly evaluate and instil a ‘culture of innovation’ within the program, a comprehensive evaluation framework was designed with the first cohort of the mentorship program. To build a solid base from which the evaluation can evolve with maximal youth participation, a Theory of Change workshop was conducted with the program participants, including youth-mentees, adult mentors, program staff and other interested community members. From this base, youth were encouraged to participate in the evaluation through various, intentionally designed participatory methods, including obtaining youth assent, frequent reflective discussions, creating accountability systems, and assuring confidentiality and appropriate use of youth voices.
Considering that many of the youth in the program lead their own social enterprises that focus on the creative arts, it was decided that evaluation findings would be presented through various formats in addition to the traditional report to funders, including story-telling, spoken word, and theatrical presentations. These creative formats of disseminating evaluation findings was meant to empower youth to be able to share their experiences and opinions in ways that built on their strengths of creative performance and artistic endeavours.
In addition to a participatory evaluation approach, a developmental evaluation (DE) approach was also followed. Due to the rapidly changing nature of youth culture, as well as, government policies, programs and services for youth, a developmental approach to program evaluation ensured that the program can remain relevant and useful to the program participants. DE was particularly well suited for this program because of the highly complex and constantly changing nature of youth programming in the creative arts and social enterprise sector.
This presentation will include a demonstration of the various strategies and approaches to working with youth in the creative arts sector, as well as, the systematic and ethical strategies of maximizing participation and appropriate use of evaluation findings. The presentation will engage the audience in discussion around the following questions: How can evaluators meaningfully enter a youth culture that may be different than typical research settings? How do you empower youth to use evaluation findings for program improvements, as well as, personal improvement? As an adult researcher, what are the strategies to remain ethical and responsive to the needs of the youth in the evaluation?
The methodology of research is critical in determining any truth claim that a research study posits. In researching childhood, a critical methodological concern is the power dynamics that occur between adults (who are typically the researcher) and children (who are typically the subject). In order to make any truth claims based on the scientific process, careful consideration must be given to the ethics of involving children in research so that power dynamics can become more equalized. This process begins with obtaining children’s assent to participate in the research process. As an adult researcher, the process of obtaining children’s assent rests on the recognition that children are competent social actors who are capable of making sense of and affecting their societies. From this recognition, adult and child researchers can begin the design and sense-making activities of research that will enhance any discoveries made about childhood.
All research involves at least two main participants, the researcher and the subject. The relationship between researcher and subject is defined by the methodology of the research. The methodology of research is critical in determining any truth claim that a research study posits.
In researching childhood, a critical methodological concern is the power dynamics that occur between adults and children. In order to make any truth claims based on the scientific process, careful consideration must be given to the ethics of involving children in research so that power dynamics can become more equalized. Ethical considerations include: how an adult researcher’s attitude and ideas about children influence the scientific process and truth statements; how a child’s attitude and ideas about adult researchers influence the scientific process and truth statements; the social environment in which the research is taking place; and the use of research discoveries. These considerations take into account the sociology of childhood which is also a well established academic discipline.
The evaluation of programs and services for children can learn a lot from the sociology of childhood in order to design and implement effective and ethical interventions in the lives of children. This presentation will highlight some of the ethical considerations that adults need to take when working with young children and will inspire some creative, fun and engaging ways to obtain children’s assent to participate in evaluation activities.
I have an idealized vision of liberating children from subtle and overt oppressive social norms in society. The process of liberation that I envision looks similar to other historic social movements, such as those involving slaves, women and ethnic minorities. These movements follow (in an overly simplistic way) as such: oppressed groups in society understand the ways in which they are oppressed by reflecting on their situation compared to ‘others’; a liberation discourse takes hold and the oppressed group demands for equal rights and opportunities; then, equal rights and opportunities are granted (or obtained) and are legally codified.
In the article on the feminist’s ethic of care, Cockburn (2005) states, “…children can become aware that they are disadvantaged only if they are able to make evaluative judgements based on the practices occurring ‘out there’ in the wider world beyond the dyadic caring relationship.” (p. 84). In the context of the article and in my own words, it seems that the author is saying that one path to liberation for children is for them to become aware of the differences of care (between relationships and between the carer and cared for) that occur outside their own personal relationships. Additionally, these differences of care are characterized by various levels and forms of power, justice and equality which become increasingly apparent.
As a children’s advocate, the moral and ethical reasoning that has dominated my actions and beliefs has largely been based on a rights-based discourse that emphasizes the uniformity and abstractness of the human condition. I’ve been guided by an idealized notion that children are deserving of respect and autonomy because they are fundamentally similar to adults in their capacity to evaluate their social condition and express that condition. The article on the Ethics of Care has inspired me to consider more the context (both historical and situational) in which care (and thus dependence) occurs, and how it defines and structures a relationship that either perpetuates or abolishes dominant oppressive attitudes.
Cockburn, T. (2005). Children and the Feminist Ethic of Care. Childhood 12(71). 71-89.
Abstract: Two global trends are taking place within our emerging knowledge society: (1) multinational private corporations are increasingly incorporating corporate social responsibility (CSR) principles into their business strategies and operations; (2) and international rights institutions and frameworks are increasingly recognizing the role of private corporations and CSR principles in development efforts. This paper seeks to situate children’s participatory rights within this growing trend. Through an exploration of these trends, opportunities for children’s genuine participation begin to arise within an increasingly globalized and technological knowledge society.
Connecting Participatory Rights to Private Corporations
CSR Principles in Relation to Children’s Rights
International Recognition of CSR Principles and Private Corporations
[see below for an accompanying presentation deck that was delivered to a masters seminar in Children’s Rights at Ryerson University’s Masters of Early Childhood Studies program]
The economic system of every state is becoming increasingly intertwined within a global trade network where massive amounts of monetary and human capital are exchanged between states on a daily basis. International regulatory frameworks and institutions are attempting to regulate and monitor capital flows to ensure fairness, justice and equity between states (Brown, 2010; Fernando, 2011). The World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Economic Forum and the United Nations Global Compact are among the international institutions that seek to promote human dignity and fairness in economic activity between states with various levels of wealth and power. Subsequently, multiple international frameworks have been created to ensure the protection, promotion and remedy of human rights of marginalized populations within states where international businesses operate (Brown, 2010; Fernando, 2011).
Recognizing that global economic activity is primarily driven by multinational private corporations, various international institutions and frameworks are increasingly acknowledging the tremendous role, responsibility and influence of private multinational corporations in economic activity that impacts human rights (Brown, 2010; Wood & Scharffs, 2002). Parallel to this, private corporations are increasingly recognizing the role of Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) within their business operations and strategies (Banerjee, 2008; Caroll, 1999; Garriga and Melé, 2004). While international institutions and frameworks have typically held States accountable to human rights and are only beginning to extend to private corporations, the development of CSR principles are being developed internally within the corporate industry and many businesses are attempting to hold themselves accountable to human rights.
Children represent a marginalized population in society whom are involved in global economic activity and for whom these international institutions and frameworks are meant to protect and respect (Boyle, 2009). In order to protect, provide and encourage the rights and optimal development of the child, the United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) was drafted, approved and ratified by 193 countries, and came into force on 2 September, 1989. While most of the UNCRC focuses on rights associated with protection from harmful exploitation in economic activity, children’s participatory rights are also provided by the Convention.
The acknowledgement of private corporations by international institutions and the development of CSR principles within private corporations are paramount to the full realization of the UNCRC in society that is characterized by an emerging digitally-facilitated knowledge society (Hargreaves, 2003). This knowledge society is characterized by economic growth and prosperity that is increasingly influenced by the creation of knowledge and the resulting economic output of services, ideas and communications (Hargreaves, 2003). The knowledge society and its knowledge property is also being influenced and controlled by the private sector which is increasingly coming into conflict with the public domain (David & Foray, 2002).
Two global trends are taking place within our emerging knowledge society: (1) multinational private corporations are increasingly incorporating CSR principles into their business strategies and operations; (2) and international rights institutions and frameworks are increasingly recognizing the role of private corporations and CSR principles. This paper seeks to situate children’s participatory rights within this growing trend. Through an exploration of these trends, opportunities for children’s genuine participation begin to arise within an increasingly globalized and technological knowledge society. Within this society, children’s participatory rights can be realized if private corporations conduct their strategies and operations according to CSR principles as articulated by the various international institutions and frameworks.
The global movement to protect, promote and realize the rights of the child has seen many States enacting laws in uniformity with the individual articles of the UNCRC. Protection rights in the UNCRC that are associated with economic activity are articulated in Articles 32 and 34 and relate to commercial work and sexual exploitation, respectively. Furthermore, Article 32 holds states accountable to upholding the child’s protection rights by enforcing a minimum age for admission to employment, appropriate regulation of hours and conditions, and penalties to ensure enforcement for violation of these rights (UN, 1989). While participation rights are also embedded in the UNCRC, the interpretation of children’s participatory rights in private economic activity remains relatively unexplored in the literature.
Article 12 in the UNCRC (1989) states that, “the child who is capable of forming his or her own views [has] the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child.”. Article 17 in the UNCRC articulates that states parties, “shall ensure that the child has access to information and material,” through mass media that is of, “social and cultural benefit to the child,” and in accordance with Article 29 which articulates the child’s right to an appropriate education in, “preparation of the child for responsible life in a free society.” Furthermore, Article 28 Section 3, encourages international cooperation in education, “in particular with a view to contributing to the elimination of ignorance and illiteracy throughout the world and facilitating access to scientific and technical knowledge and modern teaching methods.”
Considering our digitally-facilitated knowledge society which is largely controlled by private corporations, the above Articles (12, 28(3), 29) of the UNCRC implicate children’s participation in private economic activity. Digital technologies–for example, the Internet, personal computers and mobile phones–allow, “access to information and material,” (UNCRC, Article 12) through a mass media known as, the Internet. These digital technologies are also, “facilitating access to scientific and technical knowledge,” (UNCRC, Article 28 (3)) and are increasingly becoming a, “modern teaching method”. Digital technology, including the Internet, grants children the capacity for individual expression and a unique opportunity to, “express those views freely in all matters affecting [them]” (UNCRC, Article 12) through multiple means of expression (Article 13), including the use of social media, blogging, and audio and video conferencing.
The digital technologies that are increasingly being used to educate children lie predominantly within the domain of private corporations (de Castell & Jenson, 2004). Corporations are the main designers, producers and promoters of the digital technologies that are quickly becoming ubiquitous in many children’s formal and informal educational settings and materials (Kleiman, 2000; Greenfield, 2009; Livingstone, 2005; Strommen, 1992). Children, as one of the central users of digital technologies–both at home and in schools–, have very little direct impact and influence over the enormously complex private corporation and its business strategies and operations (Druin, 2002; Guha, 2004). The current state of private economic activity thus excludes children’s genuine participation and their associated rights in matters that affect them the most, namely their education.
The enormous wealth and power that private corporations hold in today’s globalized world necessitates an obligation and responsibility to act ethically in its business operations (Brown, 2010). Many private corporations operate within multiple countries and are not only involved with influencing children’s education through its products and services, but are also involved in the manufacturing process, which typically occur in developing countries where issues of exploitative child labour is prevalent (Brown, 2010; Fernando, 2011). As such, the development and adoption of CSR principles by private corporations and their acknowledgement by international institutions, like UNICEF and the UN, represent progress in recognizing children’s participatory rights, whether they are explicitly stated or not within individual corporations’ CSR policies.
The notion of CSR, as it applies to private corporations, has a long and complex history, especially within the United States–the birthplace of the modern private corporation (Banerjee, 2008; Caroll, 1999). After a thorough investigation of over 50 years of literature on the definition of CSR, Caroll (1999) suggests four kinds of social responsibilities that constitute CSR practice: economic, legal, ethical and philanthropic. To put in more pragmatic terms, Caroll (1991) summarizes, “The CSR firm should strive to make a profit, obey the law, be ethical, and be a good corporate citizen” (p. 43).
However, as Banerjee (2008), Caroll (1999), and Garriga and Melé (2004) point out, the notion of CSR is highly contextual and unclear. This presents a problem when discussing children’s rights in a globalized economy. Some may believe CSR conveys the idea of legal responsibility; to others, it means being ethical in social behaviours; still to others, CSR may simply equate with charitable contributions regardless of the nature of the economic activity (Votaw, 1972). Relatively few of the CSR principles outline participation rights at all, whether adult’s or children’s.
In order to clarify over 50 years of literature, Garriga and Melé (2004) attempt to ‘map the terrain’ of CSR theories and approaches by classifying them in four groups: (1) instrumental theories, which focus on the wealth creation of corporations and that any social activities are a means to economic results; (2) political theories, which focus on the responsible use of political power by corporations; (3) integrative theories, in which the corporation is focused on social demands in society; and (4) ethical theories, which articulate how corporations should ethically conduct themselves in society. Integrative theories of CSR could provide a useful model for contextualizing children’s participatory rights in economic activity which produces products and services that are meant to meet the social needs of an increasingly technological society. In other words, corporations operate in society only in as much as social demands dictate, which gives them a certain legitimacy and prestige. As such, corporations should take into account these social demands and integrate them in their business strategies and operations in accordance with social values (Garriga and Melé, 2004).
These social values within a complex globalized economy can be very difficult to articulate. However, a number of prominent social and international institutions, such as UNICEF and the UN, have undertaken this monumental task and continue to articulate them through various frameworks and documentations, which I will discuss in the subsequent sections of this paper.
Garriga and Melé (2004) identify the concept of social responsiveness as being instrumental to integrative approaches to CSR. When private corporations are socially responsive, they are able to identify the unmet social demands of society and choose to address these demands through economic activity in accordance with the social values of society.
While CSR principles have been heavily critiqued in modern society (Banerjee, 2008; Matten & Moon, 2004), it is possible for private corporations to take a specific theory and approach to CSR, such as integrative theories, in order to maximize children’s participation in economic activity. Children represent a key audience and consumer to some private corporations. Thus, their legitimacy and prestige, or as UNICEF states, “their social license to operate” (UN Global Compact, 2012, p. 3), is directly correlated to children’s unmet social demands. In order for private corporations to live up to their CSR policies, they must include children’s genuine participation in their business strategies and operations.
It should also be noted that integrative theories of CSR assume that society’s social needs and values are aligned with the best interests of its citizens, including children. It may be that society does not know what is best for its citizens. As such, any CSR policies that private corporations adopt should also consider other theories and approaches related to CSR such as profitability, political power, and ethical conduct.
By adopting an integrative approach to CSR, we recognize that private corporations can be responsible by meeting the social demands of society in accordance with social values. Several documents and frameworks by the UN and UNICEF can be understood to articulate these social demands and values of a global population. For example, in light of the discovery of extreme forms of exploitative child labour in developing countries, the UNCRC developed Article 32 which recognizes a child’s right to be protected from economic exploitation that may be harmful to their development (UN, 1989). Furthermore, in recognition of our knowledge society, the UNCRC developed Aarticles 17, 28, and 29 which articulate a child’s right to access information and material through mass media which will prepare them to live in a free society. This right in the UNCRC articulates the social demand that children need access to certain technologies in order to participate fully in society and contribute to their intellectual development.
Recently, the United Nations Global Compact (UNGC), a UN agency that seeks to work with international businesses to align their operations and strategies with human rights, along with UNICEF and Save the Children have launched an initiative to protect children’s rights within our increasingly globalized economic system. Their flagship document entitled, Children’s Rights and Business Practices (CRBP), is an attempt to promote children’s protective and participatory rights within the private sector businesses’ strategies and operations, and to be subsequently codified in within CSR policies (UN Global Compact, 2012). This document is another attempt, in addition to Article 32 in the UNCRC, to further detail the social demands society places on the economic activity of private corporations in respect to children’s rights.
The CRBP document gives more weight to social demands that emphasize protective rights rather than participatory rights. However, the document clearly identifies that one of the core principles of the UNCRC is child participation. In outlining various social demands in accordance with social values, the CRBP document misses an opportunity to include children’s participation. For example, Principle 2 in the CRBP document outlines that, “all business should contribute towards the elimination of child labour, including in all business activities and business relationships” (UN Global Compact, 2012, p. 18). Several authors have illustrated the dichotomous role of child labour in developing countries and how international pressure to eliminate child labour comes at some costs while also excluding children’s genuine participation (Berge, 2007; Bourdillon, 2006; Boyle, 2009; Liebel, 2002, 2003). Berge (2007) and Liebel (2002, 2003) illustrate the children’s rights movements in Latin America where children exercised their participatory rights to freedom of expression on the issues that matter most to them, namely the need to work in order to sustain their livelihoods. Berge (2007) and Liebel’s (2002, 2003) argument is that child labour is inevitable in the existing capitalist system and the poverty resulting from it (Berge, 2007). Therefore, child labour is seen as a ‘necessary evil’, and it is better to recognize children’s active participation and advocacy for creating safer working conditions. Another argument, articulated by Liebel (2002), is that children’s work can contribute to their personal development and prepare them to play a responsible and meaningful role in their societies. Both of the aforementioned arguments were obtained directly from children exercising their participatory rights by expressing their social demands and values.
UNICEF also recently launched a new website to coincide with the launch of the CRBP initiative (UNICEF, 2012a). The website directly addresses CSR in order to advance children’s rights in business and economic activity. The website is meant to provide practical tools and knowledge for businesses who seek to align their strategies and operations with the UNCRC and the CRBP. The website acknowledges that children are not simply miniature versions of adults and that economic activity affects them differently. As such, private businesses need to consider the unique social context of childhood in order to reduce the harmful effects of economic activity.
However, similar to the CRBP initiative, there is a lack of discussion on children’s participatory rights. Interestingly, in a section on integrating children’s rights into business strategies and operations, the website mentions that the first step to becoming a child-friendly business is to take appropriate actions to prevent and mitigate the business impact on children’s rights. Furthermore, the website articulates that businesses can continue by advancing children’s rights through core business activities. This alludes to the notion of incorporating children’s participation in business activities as an extension of protective rights without explicitly saying so.
In order to clarify their stance on children’s participation in private economic activity, UNICEF recently released a document called, Children are Everyone’s Business (CEB), which serves as a practical workbook to help companies understand and address their impact on children’s rights (UNICEF, 2012b). In a section on engaging stakeholders, the document emphasizes that the, “best experts on how businesses impact children” (p. 34) are the children themselves. They continue to outline some methods for meaningful child participation and ethical considerations when working with children. While this mention of children’s genuine participation in private economic activity is a welcomed step in the right direction, it is far from an exhaustive discussion about how children can meaningfully participate. Furthermore, the section is only one page in a document that is more than hundred pages long.
Through an exploration of the recent developments and adoptions of CSR principles by prominent and international rights-based institutions, such as UNICEF and the UN, we see that there continues to be a lack of critical discussion and acknowledgement of children’s participatory rights. However, it is also evident that there is rapid growth in the field of CSR within these rights-based institutions with the release of several documents and initiatives within the last few years. The CRBP, CEB and UNCRC acknowledge the importance of participatory rights and children’s meaningful participation. As the two global trends of CSR adoption and its recognition by international institutions continue to expand and articulate itself through research and practice, the new conceptions of childhood will realize itself in our emerging knowledge society.
Banerjee, S.B., 2008. Corporate social Responsibility: The good, the bad and the ugly. Critical Sociology, 34(1), pp.51-79. Available at: http://crs.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0896920507084623 [Accessed March 9, 2012].
Berge, M. van den, 2007. Working children’ s movements in Peru. International Research on Working Children, pp.1-74
Bourdillon, M., 2006. Children and work : A review of current literature. Development and Change, 37(6), pp.1201-1226.
Boyle, E.H. & Kim, M., 2009. International human rights law, global economic reforms, and child survival and development rights outcomes. Law & Society Review, 43(3), pp.455-490.
Brown, S.D., 2010. Protecting the children: the need for a modern day balancing test to regulate child labor in international business. Journal of Transnational Law and Policy, 20, pp.129-156.
Carroll, A. B., 1991. The pyramid of corporate social responsibility: Toward the moral management of organizational stakeholders. Business Horizons, 34, pp.39-48.
Carroll, A. B., 1999. Corporate social responsibility: Evolution of a definitional construct. Business & Society, 38(3), pp.268-295. Available at: http://bas.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/000765039903800303 [Accessed March 9, 2012].
David, P. A., & Foray, D. 2002. Economic Fundamentals of the Knowledge Society. Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. SIEPR Discussion Paper No. 01-14. Available at: http://www-siepr.stanford.edu/papers/pdf/01-14.pdf [Accessed October 3, 2012].
de Castell, S., & Jenson, J. 2004. Paying attention to attention: New economic for learning. Education Theory, 54(4), pp. 380–397.
Druin, A., 2002. The role of children in the design of new technology. Behaviour & Information Technology, 21(1), pp.1-25. Available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01449290110108659 [Accessed March 9, 2012].
Fernando, J.L., 2001. Children’ s rights: Beyond the impasse. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 575, pp.8-24.
Hargreaves A. 2003. Teaching in the knowledge society: Education in the age of insecurity, (Chap.1, pp.9-34). New York: Teachers College Press.
Garriga, E. & Mele, D., 2004. Corporate social responsibility theories : Mapping the territory. Journal of Business Ethics, 53, pp.51-71.
Greenfield, P.M., 2009. Technology and informal education: what is taught, what is learned. Science (New York, N.Y.), 323(5910), pp.69-71. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19119220 [Accessed July 5, 2011].
Guha, M.L. et al., 2004. Mixing ideas : A new technique for working with young children as design partners. In Proceedings of the 2004 conference on Interaction design and children: building a community. pp. 35-42.
Kleiman, B.G.M., 2000. Myths and realities about technology in K-12 schools. The Online Journal of the Leadership and the New Technologies Community, (14), pp.1-8.
Liebel, M., 2002. Child labour and the contribution of working children’s organisations in the third world. International Review of Education, 48(3-4), pp.265-270.
Liebel, M., 2003. Working children as social subjects: The contribution of working children’s organizations to social transformations. Childhood, 10(3), pp.265-285.
Livingstone, S., 2005. Mediating the public/private boundary at home: children’s use of the Internet for privacy and participation. Journal of Media Practice, 6(1), pp.41-51. Available at: http://www.extenza-eps.com/INT/doi/abs/10.1386/jmpr.6.1.41/1 [Accessed April 26, 2012].
Matten, D. & Moon, J., 2004. Corporate social responsibility education in Europe. Journal of Business Ethics, 54, pp.323-337.
Strommen, E.F. & Lincoln, B., 1992. Constructivism, technology, and the future of classroom learning. Education and Urban Society, 24(4), pp.466-476.
UN. 1989. United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Available at: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm [Accessed June 18, 2012]
UNICEF. 2012a. Corporate social responsibility: Advancing children’s rights in business. Available at: http://www.unicef.org/csr/ [Accessed June 18, 2012]
UNICEF. 2012b. Children are everyone’s business: A practical workbook to help companies understand and address their impact on children’s rights. Available at: http://www.unicef.org/csr/css/CSR_Workbook_A4_LR_low_res.pdf [Accessed June 18, 2012]
UN Global Compact. 2012. Children’s Rights and Business Principles. Available at: http://www.unglobalcompact.org/docs/issues_doc/human_rights/CRBP/Childrens_Rights_and_Business_Principles.pdf [Accessed June 18, 2012]
Votaw, D. 1972. Genius became rare: A comment on the doctrine of social responsibility Pt 1. California Management Review 15(2), 25–31.
In his book, Development as Freedom, Amartya Sen (winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics) examines the substantial issue of participation as a part of the process of economic development. Participation represents a critical component of freedoms that individuals must exercise in a progressive economic society–which also relies on freedoms in political and social engagements.
Sen focuses on individuals as agents that are capable of participating in economic, political and social arrangements. In this sense, individuals are seen as a homogenous group of capable individuals. Departing from Sen’s argument, I am interested in considering how children, as a group, are capable agents in their own economic, political, and social (EPS) realities–or even within the wider EPS realities that do not directly affect their lives.
I believe there is a process of development that includes the full participation of children as capable agents. Whereas, Sen (1999) positions that “adults” need the necessary, “knowledge and basic educational skills” (p.32) to participate, children represent a special case where the responsibility to include them rests on the acknowledgement of their participation from adults. The acknowledgement of children’s participation in economic, political and social arrangements by adults is a necessary first step because of the deeply embedded inequalities between children and adults in society. Those inequalities are manifested during multiple interactions between children and adults, including decision-making processes, familial arrangements, educational opportunities, etc.
The perception is that children may not have the necessary knowledge and basic educational skill to participate because of their relative inexperience in terms of ‘years being alive’–however, this should not exclude them from directly participating in their social arrangments. Children, as a group, have been denied freedoms on the grounds of this relative inexperience and immaturity (see Young-Bruehl’s and Wall’s interpretation of ‘childism’). This same argument has been used throughout history to subjugate groups of people in order to favor the developmental needs of the “elite” or dominant group in society (ie: slaves and slave owners, development aid in impoverished regions). The argument is that the “elite” or dominant group is successful simply because they are dominant, and that they know what is best for others based on their formula of domination. There is ample evidence that inequalities between groups in society and domination from a particular group is a detriment to overall human progress, so I will spare the discussion (if you are interested in this discussion, check out Richard Wilkinson and Joseph Stiglitz who write extensively on how inequalities in society harm progress and violate democratic rights). My point is that children experience the same type of subjugation and domination by adults that prevents them from participating in society–and that this has detrimental effects on their individual development and to the development of society as a whole.
Take, for example, our public educational system in North America. This system is obligatory for children to attend and there are strong incentives to succeed. The failure of some children to succeed in public education has long-lasting repurcussions throughout their individual lives and society in general because of our meritocratic and hierarchical system that relies on institutionalized educational attainment (read Illich, Freire, Giroux for this discussion). Without the official merits of educational attainment, children and adults are excluded from participation in economic, political and social systems. However, as Illich and Freire have articulated extensively, our public education system is not the only means of learning and teaching. Individuals learn and teach in almost all contexts and situations during their daily lives. Then why is our obligatory school system the only validation that someone has learned something and is capable of full participation in society. I believe that on some level, children understand this incongruity between obligatory schooling and learning in every day life–which causes some of the failings and conflicts within our public education system.
When children are acknowledged as full participants in society and are capable of exercising their freedoms (while taking into consideration the responsibility that adults hold over children), Sen’s ‘development as freedom’ can be realized which includes all members of society, regardless of social status, cultural affiliations, age and gender.
More reading material related to this post:
Pierce, C. M., & Allen, G. B. (1975). Childism. Psychiatric Annals, 5(7), 15–24.
Sen, A. (1999). Development as Freedom. Random House: New York.
Wall, J. (2008). Human Rights in Light of Childhood. The International Journal of Children’s Rights, 16(4), 523–543.
Wilkinson, R. (2009). The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone. Penguin: London.
Young-Bruehl, E. (2012). Childism: Confronting Prejudice Against Children. Yale University Press.
A recently published article in the academic journal, Childhood, explores how disabled children and young people in the global south can meaningfully participate in research activities that seek to understand their lives.
I am particularly interested in stretching my self-awareness of power and privilege as a social researcher interested in the lives of some of the most marginalized voices on the planet—children with disabilities. How can I empower children with disabilities to feel comfortable and able to express their ideas, opinions and perspectives to those in power and have an influence on their decision-making processes?
Abstract: This article considers how disabled children and young people living in the global south can be included actively in research that explores their lives. While acknowledging the complex, theoretical dilemmas in the overlapping arenas of childhood, disability and international development, the focus here is on methodology. Many researchers argue that children in diverse contexts can be active participants in research and this is increasingly occurring globally. However, this trend towards consulting children themselves is rarely extended to those with disabilities. Arguably, they are accidentally forgotten, assumed to have nothing to say or perceived to be methodologically difficult to include. Thus, disabled children and young people’s perspectives are overlooked, particularly in the global south. We describe two participatory research projects with disabled children and young people in India and Sri Lanka, and focus particularly on practical issues that arose including recruitment, information and consent processes and data collection methods. We argue that considering these issues and making the necessary adaptations to enable children with a variety of impairments to participate meaningfully contributes to enacting both the relevant United Nations conventions, the 1989 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Advocating their participation without making appropriate provisions is potentially tokenistic and unethical. It is necessary and possible to include them both in ‘mainstream’ child- focussed research, and specific disability-orientated projects. Involving disabled children in research has dual purposes: inclusion of their perspectives alongside those of other children and highlighting their disability-specific views where relevant. What they say may be surprising to some and challenge assumptions about them. Importantly, this will contribute to reducing their marginalisation from mainstream society.
Link to article: http://chd.sagepub.com/content/21/3/400.abstract