Advertisement

Reconstructing Children’s Concepts: Some Theoretical Ideas and Empirical Findings on Education and the Good Life

  • Sabine AndresenEmail author
  • Katharina Gerarts
Chapter
Part of the Children’s Well-Being: Indicators and Research book series (CHIR, volume 8)

Abstract

Recent approaches in childhood studies emphasize the strengths and actor status of children, problematize the power hierarchy in the relation between the generations, and view the childhood phase as a social concept that is also shaped by specific interests. Research on child well-being also proceeds from a paradigmatic shift in perspective from well-becoming to well-being as well as from a focus on adults to a focus on the child. This orientation toward children in the here and now and children as autonomous actors links up in terms of the theory of children’s rights. This chapter starts by taking a sociology of science perspective on a childhood studies oriented toward educational science. It then clarifies how one can systematically focus on the relation between well-being and well-becoming when carrying out childhood studies. Here it focuses on the Capability Approach with the theory of the “good life.” Based on this theoretical discussion the chapter includes empirical analyses: first children’s own childrearing concepts and second children’s concepts on freedom and the “good life”. It concludes with ideas on children’s concepts as an important perspective on the development of the Children’s Rights Approach.

Keywords

Group Discussion Good Life Generational Order Capability Approach Childhood Study 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Anand, P. H. (2008). Homo Faber: The happiness and capabilities of very young children. Unpublished manuscript, Open University, Milton Keynes, England.Google Scholar
  2. Andresen, S. (2014). Educational science and children’s well-being. In A. Ben-Arieh, F. Casas, I. Frones, & J. E. Korbin (Eds.), Handbook on child well-being. Theories, methods and policies in global perspective (pp. 249–278). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andresen, S., & Fegter, S. (2011). Children growing up in poverty and their ideas on what constitutes a good life: Childhood studies in Germany. Child Indicators Research, 1, 1–19.Google Scholar
  4. Andresen, S., Otto, H.-U., & Ziegler, H. (2008). Bildung as human development: An educational view on the capabilities approach. In H.-U. Otto & H. Ziegler (Eds.), Verwirklichungschancen und Befähigungsgerechtigkeit in der Erziehungswissenschaft. Zum sozial-, jugend- und bildungstheoretischen potential des capability approach (pp. 165–197). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.Google Scholar
  5. Andresen, S., Diehm, I., Sander, U., & Ziegler, H. (Eds.). (2010). Children and the good life. New challenges for research on children. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Andresen, S., Hurrelmann, K., & Schneekloth, U. (2012). Care and freedom. Theoretical and empirical aspects of children’s well-being. Child Indicators Research, 5, 437–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ballet, J, Bhukuth, A., & Radj, K. (2004).Capabilities, affective capital and development application to street children in Mauritania. Paper presented at the 4th International Conference on the Capability Approach “Enhancing Human Security”. Pavia, Italia.Google Scholar
  8. Ben Arieh, A. (2010). Measuring and monitoring children’s well-being: The policy process. In A. Ben-Arieh & R. Goerge (Eds.), Indicators of children’s well being: Understanding their role, usage and policy influence (Social indicators research series, Vol. 27, pp. 21–32). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. New York: OpenRoadMedia.Google Scholar
  10. Betz, T. (2008). Ungleiche Kindheiten. Theoretische und empirische Analysen zur Sozialberichterstattung über Kinder. Weinheim: Juventa Verlag.Google Scholar
  11. Biggeri, M., Ballet, J., & Comim, F. (2010). The capability approach and research on children: Capability approach and children’s issues. In S. Andresen, I. Diehm, U. Sander, & H. Ziegler (Eds.), Children and the good life (pp. 75–90). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  12. Bock, K. (2010). Kinderalltag—Kinderwelten. Rekonstruktive Gruppendiskussionen mit Kindern aus Sachsen. Opladen: Barbara Budrich.Google Scholar
  13. Böhm, W. (2005). Wörterbuch der Pädagogik. Stuttgart: Alfred Kröner Verlag.Google Scholar
  14. Di Tommaso, M. L. (2006). Measuring the well-being of children using a capability approach: An application to Indian data. CHILD Working Papers wp05_06, CHILD (Centre for Household, Income, Labour and Demographic economics), Torino, Italy.Google Scholar
  15. Doek, J. E. (2014). Child well-being: Children’s rights perspective. In A. Ben-Arieh, F. Casas, I. Frones, & J. E. Korbin (Eds.), Handbook on child well-being. Theories, methods and policies in global perspective (pp. 187–217). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Honig, M.-S. (1999). Entwurf einer Theorie der Kindheit. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  17. Hoyer, T. (2005). Tugend und Erziehung. Die Grundlegung der Moralpädagogik in der Antike. Bad Heilbrunn: Klinkhardt.Google Scholar
  18. Kelle, H. (2005). Kinder und Erwachsene. Die Differenzierung von Generationen als kulturelle Praxis. In H. Hengst & H. Zeiher (Eds.), Kindheit soziologisch (pp. 83–108). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Korczak, J. (1999). Das Kind in der Familie. In Sämtliche Werke Bd. 4. Wie man ein Kind lebt. Erziehungsmomente, das Recht des Kindes auf Achtung, Fröhliche Pädagogik. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus. (Original work published 1929).Google Scholar
  20. Liegle, L. (2006). Bildung und Erziehung in früher Kindheit. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.Google Scholar
  21. Mayall, B. (2002). Towards a sociology for childhood: Thinking from children’s lives. London: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Nussbaum, M. (1999). Gerechtigkeit oder das gute Leben. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  23. Nussbaum, M. (2000). Women and human development: The capabilities approach. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Nussbaum, M. (2011). Creating capabilities: The human development approach. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Qvortrup, J. (2014). Sociology: Societal structures, development of childhood, and the well-being of children. In A. Ben-Arieh, F. Casas, I. Frones, & J. E. Korbin (Eds.), Handbook on child well-being. Theories, methods and policies in global perspective (pp. 663–708). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Rawls, J. (1971): A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Rees, G., & Lee. (2005). Still running II: Finding from the second national survey of young runaways. London: The Children’s Society.Google Scholar
  28. Rees, G., Pople, L., & Goswami, H. (2011). Understanding children’s well-being. Links between family economic factors and children’s subjective well-being: Initial findings from Wave 2 and Wave 3 quarterly surveys. The Children’s Society. http://www.phru.net/mhin/childandyouth/Child%20and%20Youth%20resources/Understanding%20childrens%20wellbeing.pdf
  29. Robeyns, I. (2000). An unworkable idea or a promising alternative? Sen’s capability approach re-examined. Discussion paper 00.30. Center for Economic Studie, Leuven. Retrieved from http://www.econ.kuleuven.ac.be/ces/discussionpapers/Dps00/DPS0030.pdf
  30. Sen, A. (2009). Development as freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1996). Grounded theory: Grundlagen Qualitativer Sozialforschung. Psychologie Verlags Union: Weinheim.Google Scholar
  32. Winkler, M. (2006). Weder Hexen noch Heilige—Bemerkungen zum Verhältnis von Pädagogik und der neueren soziologischen Kindheitsforschung. In S. Andresen & I. Diehm (Eds.), Kinder, Kindheiten, Konstruktionen. Erziehungswissenschaftliche Perspektiven und sozialpädagogische Verortungen. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  33. World Vision. (2007). Kinder in Deutschland 2007. 1. World vision survey. Wissenschaftliche Leitung: Klaus Hurrelmann und Sabine Andresen. Frankfurt: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag.Google Scholar
  34. World Vision. (2010). Kinder in Deutschland 2010. 2. World vision survey. Wissenschaftliche Leitung: Klaus Hurrelmann und Sabine Andresen. Frankfurt: Fischer Taschenbuch Verlag.Google Scholar
  35. World Vision. (2013).“Wie gerecht ist unsere Welt?Kinder in Deutschland 2013. 3. World vision survey. Wissenschaftliche Leitung: Sabine Andresen und Klaus Hurrelmann. Weinheim: Beltz.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für Sozialpädagogik und ErwachsenenbildungGoethe University FrankfurtFrankfurt am MainGermany
  2. 2.World Vision Institute für Forschung und InnovationFriedrichsdorfGermany

Personalised recommendations