3.8 Article

Children and Young People's Participation Rights: Looking Backwards and Moving Forwards

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CHILDRENS RIGHTS
卷 28, 期 1, 页码 157-182

出版社

BRILL
DOI: 10.1163/15718182-02801002

关键词

children; childhood; young people; youth; participation; activism; activists; children's rights

资金

  1. Economic and Social Research Council/ukri [R451265206, RES-189-25-0174, RES-451-26-0685, ES/T001399/1, ES/S004351/1]
  2. University of Edinburgh
  3. esrc Impact Acceleration Account
  4. European Research Council
  5. European Union
  6. Foundation of Canadian Studies
  7. Leverhulme Trust
  8. Royal Society of Edinburgh
  9. Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
  10. World Vision International
  11. British Academy
  12. ESRC [ES/T001399/1, ES/S004351/1] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Children and young people's participation is an ever-growing demand. Thirty years on from the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child's adoption, however, fundamental challenges continue for participation that are widely recognised cross-nationally but remain stubbornly consistent. As a way in to considering the children and young people's participation literature more generally, all articles referring to participation in their titles were identified from The International Journal of Children's Rights. These 56 articles were analysed to identify trends, challenges and opportunities. The analysis found: a remarkably consistent narrative on participation over the 30 years; limitations on domains considered, geography and conceptual clarity; and far more written about challenges than solutions. Drawing on these findings and considering the participation literature more generally, the article recommends that the field expands its geographic and intellectual boundaries, uses powerful concepts like agency, competency and autonomy with greater precision, and explores fresh ideas like child protoganism, activism and children as human rights defenders.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据