Advertisement

Towards a Decentering of ‘The Child’

  • Spyros Spyrou
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Childhood and Youth book series (SCY)

Abstract

This chapter reviews a number of key contemporary developments in social theory—poststructuralist, feminist, and post-humanist—to consider their impact on knowledge production in childhood studies as a field. It argues that in different ways the insights of these theoretical approaches offer the field opportunities to decenter its very object of inquiry, namely, the child, and to rethink its knowledge practices in ways which extent its scope. The chapter also considers what a critically reflexive childhood studies may look like and how a diffractive way of thinking may help the field to reflect on, and assess, its political and ethical commitments through the knowledge it produces.

References

  1. Alaimo, S., & Hekman, S. (Eds.). (2010). Material feminisms. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Alanen, L. (1994). Gender and generation: Feminism and the “child question”. In J. Qvortrup, M. Bardy, G. Sgritta, & H. Wintersberger (Eds.), Childhood matters: Social theory, practice and politics (pp. 27–42). Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar
  3. Alanen, L. (2000). Childhood as generational condition: Towards a relational theory of childhood. Research in childhood: Sociology, culture and history (pp. 11–30). Odense: University of Southern Denmark.Google Scholar
  4. Alanen, L. (2001). Explorations in generational analysis. In L. Alanen & B. Mayall (Eds.), Conceptualizing child-adult relations. London: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  5. Alanen, L. (2009). Generational order. In J. Qvortrup, W. A. Corsaro, & M.-S. Honig (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook in childhood studies (pp. 159–174). Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  6. Alanen, L. (2011). Editorial: Critical childhood studies? Childhood, 18(2), 147–150.Google Scholar
  7. Alanen, L. (2014). Editorial: Theorizing childhood. Childhood, 21(1), 3–6.Google Scholar
  8. Alderson, P. (2001). Research by children. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 4(2), 139–153.Google Scholar
  9. Alderson, P. (2013). Childhoods real and imagined. Volume 1: An introduction to critical realism and childhood studies. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Alderson, P. (2016a). The politics of childhoods real and imagined: Practical application of critical realism and childhood studies. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Alderson, P. (2016b). The philosophy of critical realism and childhood studies. Global Studies of Childhood, 6(2), 199–210.Google Scholar
  12. Alldred, P. (1998). Representing voices in ethnography and discourse analysis. In J. Ribbens & R. Edwards (Eds.), Feminist dilemmas in qualitative research: Public knowledge and private lives (pp. 147–170). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  13. Alldred, P., & Burman, E. (2005). Analysing children’s accounts using discourse analysis. In S. Greene & D. Hogan (Eds.), Researching children’s experience: Approaches and methods (pp. 175–198). London, Thousand Oaks, and New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Alvesson, M., & Skoldberg, K. (2009). Reflexive methodology: New vistas for qualitative research. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore, and Washington, DC: Sage.Google Scholar
  15. Anderson, E. (2017). Feminist epistemology and philosophy of science. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2017 ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/feminism-epistemology/. Accessed on January 21, 2018.
  16. Anderson, L. (2006). Analytic autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), 373–395.Google Scholar
  17. Archer, M. (1995). Realist social theory: The morphogenetic approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Aspers, P. (2010). Relational ontology: Being and order out of Heidegger’s socioontology. In S. Mutzel & J. Fuhse (Eds.), Relationale Soziologie: Zur Kulturellen Wende der Netzwerkforschuhng. Weisbaden: VS Verlag.Google Scholar
  19. Atkinson, P. (1990). The ethnographic imagination: Textual constructions of reality. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  20. Atkinson, P., & Delamont, S. (2008). Editors’ introduction: Ethnographic representation and rhetoric. In P. Atkinson & S. Delamont (Eds.), Representing ethnography. Volume 1: Contexts and controversies (pp. xix–l). Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, and Singapore: Sage.Google Scholar
  21. Barad, K. (2001). (Re)configuring space, time and matter. In M. Dekoven (Ed.), Feminist locations (pp. 75–109). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Best, A. (Ed.). (2007). Representing youth: Methodological issues in critical youth studies. New York and London: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Bhaskar, R. (1998). The possibility of naturalism: A philosophical critique of the contemporary human sciences (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Bhaskar, R. (2008). Dialectic: The pulse of freedom (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Bluebond-Langner, M., & Korbin, J. E. (2007). Challenges and opportunities in the anthropology of childhoods: An introduction to children, childhoods, and childhood studies. American Anthropologist, 109(2), 241–246.Google Scholar
  27. Bozalek, V., & Zembylas, M. (2017). Diffraction or reflection? Sketching the contours of two methodologies in educational research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 30(2), 111–127.Google Scholar
  28. Bragg, S., & Buckingham, D. (2008). ‘Scrapbooks’ as a resource in media research with young people. In P. Thompson (Ed.), Doing visual research with children and young people (pp. 114–131). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Braidotti, R. (2013). The posthuman. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  30. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  31. Chin, E. (2007). Power-puff ethnography/guerilla research: Children as native anthropologists. In A. Best (Ed.), Representing youth: Methodological issues in critical youth studies (pp. 269–283). New York and London: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Christensen, P. (2004). Children’s participation in ethnographic research: Issues of power and representation. Children and Society, 18(2), 165–176.Google Scholar
  33. Christensen, P., & James, A. (2000). Research with children: Perspectives and practices. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  34. Clifford, J. (1988). The predicament of culture. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Clifford, J., & Marcus, G. (1986). Writing culture: The poetics and politics of ethnography. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  36. Cockburn, T. (2005). Children and the feminist ethic of care. Childhood, 12(1), 71–89.Google Scholar
  37. Connolly, P. (2008). Race, gender and critical reflexivity in research with young children. In P. Christensen & A. James (Eds.), Research with children: Perspectives and practices (2nd ed., pp. 173–188). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  38. Coole, D., & Frost, S. (Eds.). (2010a). New materialisms: Ontology, agency, and politics. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Coole, D., & Frost, S. (2010b). Introducing the new materialisms. In D. Coole & S. Frost (Eds.), New materialisms: Ontology, agency, and politics (pp. 1–43). Durham and London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Corsaro, W. (2003). We’re friends right? Inside kids’ culture. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.Google Scholar
  41. Davies, B. (2014). Reading anger in early childhood intra-actions: A diffractive analysis. Qualitative Inquiry, 20, 731–741.Google Scholar
  42. Denzin, N. (2002). Confronting ethnography’s crisis of representation. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 31(4), 482–490.Google Scholar
  43. Denzin, N. (2008). Confronting ethnography’s crisis of representation. In P. Atkinson & S. Delamont (Eds.), Representing ethnography. Volume 2: Reading qualitative research. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, and Singapore: Sage.Google Scholar
  44. Dolphijn, R., & van der Tuin, I. (2012). New materialism: Interviews and cartographies. Ann Arbor, MI: Open Humanities Press.Google Scholar
  45. Ferrando, F. (2013). Posthumanism, transhumanism, antihumanism, metahumanism, and new materialisms differences and relations. An International Journal in Philosophy, Religion, Politics and the Arts, 8(2), 26–32.Google Scholar
  46. Fine, G. A., & Sandstrom, K. (1988). Knowing children: Participant observation with minors. Qualitative research methods 15. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  47. Fischer, M., & Abedi, M. (1990). Debating Muslims: Cultural dialogues in postmodernity and tradition. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  48. Fox, N. J., & Alldred, P. (2017). Sociology and the new materialism: Theory, research, action. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  49. Freeman, M., & Mathison, S. (2009). Researching children’s experiences. New York and London: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  50. Freshwater, D. (2001). Critical reflexivity: A politically and ethically engaged research method for nursing. Journal of Research in Nursing, 6(1), 526–537.Google Scholar
  51. Gallagher, M. (2008). ‘Power is not evil’: Rethinking power in participatory methods. Children’s Geographies, 6(2), 137–150.Google Scholar
  52. Gallacher, L.-A., & Gallagher, M. (2008). Methodological immaturity in childhood research? Thinking through ‘participatory methods’. Childhood, 15(4), 499–516.Google Scholar
  53. Gergen, K. (2009). An invitation to social construction (2nd ed.). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  54. Glauser, B. (1990). Street children: Deconstructing a construct. In A. James & A. Prout (Eds.), Constructing and reconstructing childhood: Contemporary issues in the sociology of childhood (pp. 138–156). London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  55. Gordon, D. (1988). Writing culture, writing feminism: The poetics and politics of experimental ethnography. Inscriptions, 3–4, 7–24.Google Scholar
  56. Graue, M. E., & Walsh, D. (1998). Studying children in context: Theories, methods, and ethics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  57. Greene, S., & Hogan, D. (Eds.). (2005). Researching children’s experience: Approaches and methods. London, Thousand Oaks, and New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
  58. Hammersley, M. (1990). What’s wrong with ethnography? The myth of theoretical description. Sociology, 24(4), 597–615.Google Scholar
  59. Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs and women: The reinvention of nature. London: Free Association Books.Google Scholar
  60. Haraway, D. (1992). The promises of monsters: A regenerative politics for inappropriate/d others. In L. Grossberg, C. Nelson, & P. Triechler (Eds.), Cultural Studies (pp. 295–337). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  61. Haraway, D. (1997). Modest_witness@second_millennium.femaleman_meets_oncomouse: Feminism and technoscience. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  62. Harding, S. (1986). The science question in feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Harding, S. (1987). Feminism and methodology: Social science issues. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Harding, S. (1991). Whose science? Whose knowledge? Thinking from women’s lives. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and time (J. Macquarrie & E. Robinson, Trans.). London: SCM Press.Google Scholar
  66. Hekman, S. (2010). The material of knowledge: Feminist disclosures. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Holbraad, M., & Pedersen, M. A. (2017). The ontological turn: An anthropological exposition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Hopkins, P., & Pain, R. (2007). Geographies of age: Thinking relationally. Area, 39(3), 287–294.Google Scholar
  69. Hoskins, M., & Stoltz, J. (2005). Fear of offending: Disclosing researcher discomfort when engaging in analysis. Qualitative Research, 5(1), 95–111.Google Scholar
  70. Huijsmans, R. (2016). Generationing development: An introduction. In R. Huijsmans (Ed.), Generationing development: A relational approach to children, youth and development (pp. 1–31). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  71. Hultman, K., & Lenz Taguchi, H. (2010). Challenging anthropocentric analysis of visual data: A relational materialist methodological approach to educational research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 23(5), 525–542.Google Scholar
  72. James, A. (2007). Giving voice to children’s voices: Practices and problems, pitfalls and potentials. American Anthropologist, 109(2), 261–272.Google Scholar
  73. James, A. (2010). Competition or integration? The next step in childhood studies? Childhood, 17(4), 485–499.Google Scholar
  74. James, A., & James, A. (2004). Constructing childhood: Theory, policy and social practice. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  75. James, A., & Prout, A. (Eds.). (1990a). Constructing and reconstructing childhood: Contemporary issues in the sociological study of childhood. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  76. James, A., & Prout, A. (1990b). A new paradigm for the sociology of childhood? Provenance, promise and problems. In A. James & A. Prout (Eds.), Constructing and reconstructing childhood: Contemporary issues in the sociological study of childhood (pp. 7–34). London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  77. James, A. & Prout, A. (1990c). Introduction. In A. James & A. Prout (Eds.), Constructing and reconstructing childhood: Contemporary issues in the sociological study of childhood. (pp. 1–6). Basingstoke: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  78. James, A., Jenks, C., & Prout, A. (1998). Theorizing childhood. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  79. Kellett, M. (2005). How to develop children as researchers: A step by step guide to teaching research process. London: Paul Chapman.Google Scholar
  80. Kellett, M. (2010). Rethinking children and research: Attitudes in contemporary society. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  81. Kendall, N., & Thangaraj, M. (2012). Ethnography. In A. A. Trainor & E. Graue (Eds.), Reviewing qualitative research in the social sciences (pp. 82–107). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  82. Knorr Cetina, K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  83. Kondo, D. (1990). Crafting selves: Power, gender, and discourses of identity in a Japanese workplace. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  84. Kraftl, P., & Horton, J. (forthcoming). Children’s geographies and the ‘new wave’ of childhood studies. In S. Spyrou, R. Rosen, & D. Cook (Eds.), Reimagining childhood studies. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  85. Kustatscher, M., Konstantoni, K., & Emejulu, A. (2016). Hybridity, hyphens and intersectionality—Relational understandings of children and young people’s social identities. In Families, intergenerationality, and peer group relations, volume 5 of the Series, Geographies of children and young people (pp. 1–19). Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  86. Lather, P. A. (1995). The validity of angels: Interpretive and textual strategies in researching the lives of women with HIV/AIDS. Qualitative Inquiry, 1(1), 41–68.Google Scholar
  87. Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986/1979). Laboratory life: The construction of scientific facts. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  88. Law, J. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  89. Law, J., & Urry, J. (2004). Enacting the social. Economy and Society, 33(3), 390–410.Google Scholar
  90. Lee, N. (1998). Towards an immature sociology. The Sociological Review, 46, 458–481.Google Scholar
  91. Lee, N. (2001). Childhood and society: Growing up in an age of uncertainty. Buckingham, UK: Open University.Google Scholar
  92. Lenz Taguchi, H. (2010). Going beyond the theory/practice divide in early childhood education: Introducing an intra-active pedagogy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  93. Lenz Taguchi, H. (2012). A diffractive and Deleuzian approach to analyzing interview data. Feminist Theory, 13(3), 265–281.Google Scholar
  94. Lenz Taguchi, H., & Palmer, A. (2013). A more ‘livable’ school? A diffractive analysis of the performative enactments of girls’ ill-well-being with(in) school environments. Gender and Education, 25, 671–687.Google Scholar
  95. Lewis, A. (2008). Race in the schoolyard: Negotiating the color line in classrooms and communities. New Brunswick, NJ and London: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  96. Mandell, N. (1988). The least-adult role in studying children. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 16, 433–467.Google Scholar
  97. Marcus, G. E. (1998). On ideologies of reflexivity in contemporary efforts to remake the human sciences. In G. Marcus (Ed.), Ethnography through thick & thin. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  98. Marcus, G. E., & Cushman, D. (1982). Ethnographies as texts. Annual Review of Anthropology, 11, 25–69.Google Scholar
  99. Marcus, G. E., & Fischer, M. (1986). Anthropology as cultural critique: An experimental moment in the human sciences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  100. Mayall, B. (2000). Conversations with children: Working with generational issues. In P. Christensen & A. James (Eds.), Research with children: Perspectives and practices (pp. 120–135). London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  101. Mayall, B. (2002). Towards a sociology of childhood: Thinking from children’s Lives. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  102. Mayes, E. (2016). Shifting research methods with a becoming-child ontology: Co-theorising puppet production with high school students. Childhood, 23(1), 105–122.Google Scholar
  103. Mazzei, L. A. (2013). Materialist mappings of knowing and being: Researchers constituted in the production of knowledge. Gender and Education, 25(6), 776–785.Google Scholar
  104. Meads, H. (2007). Insider research into ‘experiment with light’: Uncomfortable reflexivity in a different field. Quaker Studies, 11(2), 282–298.Google Scholar
  105. Mitchell, V. A. (2017). Diffracting reflection: A move beyond reflective practice. Education as Change, 21(2), 165–186.Google Scholar
  106. Mol, A. (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Durham and London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  107. Morrow, V., & Richards, M. (1996). The ethics of social research with children: An overview. Children and Society, 10(2), 90–105.Google Scholar
  108. Nightingale, A. (2003). A feminist in the forest: Situated knowledges and mixing methods in natural resource management. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies, 2(1), 77–90.Google Scholar
  109. Oswell, D. (2013). The agency of children: From family to global human rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  110. Paget, M. A. (1990). Performing the text. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 19(1), 136–155.Google Scholar
  111. Philo, C. (2016). Childhood is measured out by sounds and sights and smells, before the dark of reason grows: Children’s geographies at 12. Children’s Geographies, 14(6), 623–640.Google Scholar
  112. Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  113. Pillow, W. (2003). Confession, catharsis, or cure? Rethinking the uses of reflexivity as methodological power in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 16(2), 175–196.Google Scholar
  114. Prout, A. (2005). The future of childhood: Towards the interdisciplinary study of children. London and New York: RoutledgeFalmer.Google Scholar
  115. Qvortrup, J. (1994). Childhood matters: An introduction. In J. Qvortrup, M. Bardy, G. B. Sgritta, & H. Wintersberger (Eds.), Childhood matters: Social theory, practice, and politics (pp. 1–23). Aldershot: Avebury.Google Scholar
  116. Raby, B. (2007). Across a great gulf? Conducting research with adolescents. In A. Best (Ed.), Representing youth: Methodological issues in critical youth studies (pp. 39–59). New York and London: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  117. Reed-Danahay, D. E. (Ed.). (1997). Auto/ethnography: Rewriting the self and the social. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  118. Rosaldo, R. (1993). Culture and truth: The remaking of social analysis. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  119. Rose, G. (1997). Situating knowledges: Positionality, reflexivities and other tactics. Progress in Human Geography, 21(3), 305–320.Google Scholar
  120. Samuelsson, T., Sparrman, A., Cardell, D., & Lindgren, A. (2015). The active, competent child, capable of autonomous action: An inherent quality or the outcome of a research process? AnthropoChildren (5), 1–19. Google Scholar
  121. Smith, D. (1990). The conceptual practices of power: A feminist sociology of knowledge. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
  122. Smith, C., & Greene, S. (2014). Key thinkers in childhood studies. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  123. Sparrman, A., & Sandin, B. (2012). Situated child consumption: An Introduction. In A. Sparrman, B. Sandin, & J. Sjöberg (Eds.), Situating child consumption: Rethinking notion and values of children, childhood and consumption (pp. 9–31). Lund: Nordic Academic Press.Google Scholar
  124. Spyrou, S. (2017). Editorial: Time to decenter childhood? Childhood, 24(4), 433–437.Google Scholar
  125. Taussig, M. (1987). Shamanism, colonialism, and the wild man: A study in terror and healing. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  126. Taylor, C. A., & Ivinson, G. (2013). Material feminisms: New directions for education. Gender and Education, 25(6), 665–670.Google Scholar
  127. Theis, J. (2001). Participatory research with children in Vietnam. In H. Schwartzman (Ed.), Children and anthropology: Perspectives for the twenty-first century (pp. 99–109). Westport, CT: Bergin and Garvey.Google Scholar
  128. Thomson, P. (Ed.). (2008). Doing visual research with children and young people. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  129. Thorne, B. (1993). Gender play: Girls and boys in school. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  130. Tisdall, E. K. M., & Punch, S. (2012). Not so ‘new’? Looking critically at childhood studies. Children’s Geographies, 10(3), 249–264.Google Scholar
  131. Veale, A. (2005). Creative methodologies in participatory research with children. London, Thousand Oaks, and New Delhi: Sage.Google Scholar
  132. Wolfinger, N. H. (2002). On writing fieldnotes: Collection strategies and background expectancies. Qualitative Research, 2(1), 85–95.Google Scholar
  133. Woolgar, S., & Lezaun, J. (2013). The wrong bin bag: A turn to ontology in science and technology studies. Social Studies of Science, 43(3), 321–340.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social and Behavioral SciencesEuropean University CyprusNicosiaCyprus

Personalised recommendations