The Ethics and Politics of Knowledge Production in Childhood Studies

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


This concluding chapter outlines some of the key theoretical insights explored in the book and their potential contributions towards the further development of childhood studies as a critical practice. The chapter makes the case for a critically open childhood studies which is aware and mindful about its own ontological entanglements with knowledge and for the irreducible character of the field’s very object of inquiry, namely, ‘the child’. These insights are considered in light of the ethics and politics of knowledge production in childhood studies and the material effects they have on children’s lives.


  1. Alaimo, S., & Hekman, S. (2008). Introduction: Emerging models of materiality in feminist theory. In S. Alaimo & S. Hekman (Eds.), Material feminisms (pp. 1–19). Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Ansell, N. (2009). Childhood and the politics of scale: Descaling children’s geographies? Progress in Human Geography, 33(2), 190–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barad, K. (1998). Getting real: Technoscientific practices and the materialization of reality. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies, 10(2), 87–128.Google Scholar
  6. Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barad, K. (2008). Posthumanist performativity: Toward an understanding of how matter comes to matter. In S. Alaimo & S. Hekman (Eds.), Material feminisms (pp. 120–154). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bessell, S. (2011). Influencing international child labour policy: The potential and limits of children-centred research. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(4), 564–568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blaser, M. (2014, January 13). The political ontology of doing difference … and sameness. Theorizing the Contemporary, Cultural Anthropology [website]. Accessed on January 21, 2018.
  10. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bordonaro, L. I. (2012). Agency does not mean freedom: Cape Verdean street children and the politics of children’s agency. Children’s Geographies, 10(4), 413–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bourdillon, M., Levison, B., Myers, W., & White, B. (2010). Rights and wrongs of children’s work. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Denov, M. (2012). Child soldiers and iconography: Portrayals and (mis)representations. Children and Society, 26(4), 280–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Eldén, S. (2013). Inviting the messy: Drawing methods and ‘children’s voices’. Childhood, 20(1), 66–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fagan, M. (2013). Ethics and politics after poststructuralism: Levinas, Derrida and Nancy. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fox, N. J., & Alldred, P. (2015). New materialist social inquiry: Designs, methods and the research-assemblage. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18(4), 399–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fox, N. J., & Alldred, P. (2017). Sociology and the new materialism: Theory, research, action. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Frost, S. (2011). The implications of the new materialisms for feminist epistemology. In H. E. Grasswick (Ed.), Feminist epistemology and philosophy of science: Power in knowledge (pp. 69–83). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Grover, S. (2004). Why won’t they listen to us? On giving power and voice to children participating in social research. Childhood, 11(1), 81–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hage, G. (2014, January 13). Critical anthropology as a permanent state of first contact. Theorizing the Contemporary, Cultural Anthropology [website]. Accessed on January 21, 2018.
  22. Hammersley, M. (2016). Childhood studies: A sustainable paradigm? Childhood 1–15.
  23. Hekman, S. (2008). Constructing the ballast: An ontology for feminism. In S. Alaimo & S. Hekman (Eds.), Material feminisms (pp. 85–119). Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hekman, S. (2010). The material of knowledge: Feminist disclosures. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Herzfeld, M. (2005). Cultural intimacy: Social poetics in the nation-state. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Holbraad, M., & Pedersen, M. A. (2017). The ontological turn: An anthropological exposition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. I’Anson, J. (2013). Beyond the child’s voice: Towards an ethics of children’s participation rights. Global Studies of Childhood, 3(2), 104–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jackson, A. Y., & Mazzei, L. (2012). Thinking with theory in qualitative research: Using epistemological frameworks in the production of meaning. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. James, A., & Prout, A. (Eds.). (1990). Constructing and reconstructing childhood: Contemporary issues in the sociological study of childhood. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  31. Kidd, D. (1906). Savage childhood: A study of Kafir children. London: Adam and Charles Black.Google Scholar
  32. Knorr Cetina, K. (2007). Culture in global knowledge societies: Knowledge cultures and epistemic cultures. Interdisciplinary Science Reviews, 32(4), 361–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Komulainen, S. (2007). The ambiguity of the child’s ‘voice’ in social research. Childhood, 14(1), 11–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Law, J. (2004). After method: Mess in social science research. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Law, J. (2014). Working well with wickedness. CRESC Working Paper 135, 1–22.Google Scholar
  36. Lee, N. (2001). Childhood and society: Growing up in an age of uncertainty. Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open University.Google Scholar
  37. Lenz Taguchi, H. (2012). A diffractive and Deleuzian approach to analysing interview data. Feminist Theory, 13(3), 265–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Liebel, M. (2007). Opinion, dialogue, review: The new ILO report on child labour—A success story, or the ILO still at a loss? Childhood, 14(2), 279–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Marcus, G. E. (1998). Ethnography through thick & thin. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Mizen, P., & Ofosu-Kusi, Y. (2013). Agency as vulnerability: Accounting for children’s movement to the streets of Accra. The Sociological Review, 61, 363–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mol, A. (1999). Ontological politics: A word and some questions. In J. Law & J. Hassard (Eds.), Actor network theory and after (pp. 74–89). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  42. Mol, A. (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Durham and London: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Open Democracy. (2016). Open letter: A better approach to child work. Accessed on January 3, 2018.
  44. Oswell, D. (2016). Re-aligning children’s agency and re-socializing children in childhood studies. In F. Esser, M. S. Baader, T. Betz, & B. Hungerland (Eds.), Reconceptualizing agency and childhood: New perspectives in childhood studies (pp. 19–33). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  45. Oswell, D. (forthcoming). What space for a children’s politics? Rethinking infancy in childhood studies. In S. Spyrou, R. Rosen, & D. Cook (Eds.), Reimagining childhood studies. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  46. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pickering, A. (1995). The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Pickering, A. (2008). New ontologies. In A. Pickering & K. Guzik (Eds.), The mangle in practice: Science, society and becoming (pp. 1–14). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pillow, W. (2010). 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Prout, A. (2000). Childhood bodies: Construction, agency and hybridity. In A. Prout (Ed.), The body, childhood and society (pp. 1–18). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rautio, P. (2014). Mingling and imitating in producing spaces for knowing and being: Insights from a Finnish study of child-matter intra-action. Childhood, 21(4), 461–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Rosen, D. (2007). Child soldiers, international humanitarian law, and the globalization of childhood. American Anthropologist, 109(2), 296–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rosen, R. (2015). ‘The scream’: Meanings and excesses in early childhood settings. Childhood, 22(1), 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rosen, D., & Bluebond-Langner, M. (2009, December 2–6). The agency of children: Political and ethical dimensions of the new childhood. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association.Google Scholar
  55. Scheper-Hughes, N. (2014). The primacy of the ethical. In D. Fassin & S. Leze (Eds.), Moral anthropology: A critical reader (pp. 313–320). London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  56. Schnoor, O. (2013). Early childhood studies as vocal studies: Examining the social practices of ‘giving voice to children’s voices’ in a crèche. Childhood, 20(4), 458–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sparrman, A. (2014). Access and gatekeeping in researching children’s sexuality: Mess in ethics and methods. Sexuality and Culture, 18(2), 291–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Spyrou, S. (2017). Editorial: Time to decenter childhood? Childhood, 24(4), 433–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Spyrou, S., Rosen, R., & Cook, D. (Eds.). (forthcoming). Reimagining childhood studies. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  60. St. Pierre, E. A. (1997). Methodology in the fold and the irruption of transgressive data. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 10(2), 175–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Thrift, N. (2008). Non-representational theory: Space/politics/affect. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  62. Tisdall, E. K. M., & Punch, S. (2012). Not so ‘new’? Looking critically at childhood studies. Children’s Geographies, 10(3), 249–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tuana, N. (2008). Viscous porosity: Witnessing Katrina. In S. Alaimo & S. Hekman (Eds.), Material feminisms (pp. 188–213). Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  64. Watson, K., Millei, Z., & Petersen, E. B. (2015). ‘Special’ non-human actors in the ‘inclusive’ early childhood classroom: The wrist-band, the lock and the scooter board. Global Studies of Childhood, 5(3), 266–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Wyness, M. (2015). Childhood. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations