IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/cysrev/v147y2023ics0190740923000105.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Recognising the embedded child in child protection: Children’s participation, inequalities and cultural capital

Author

Listed:
  • Keddell, Emily

Abstract

Children’s right to participation in child protection decision-making is supported by moral imperatives and international conventions. The fragmented implementation of this right reflects a conflicted discursive terrain that attempts to incorporate both children’s agency and their need for protection. This article uses two theoretical lenses to further examine this terrain: child welfare inequalities and cultural capital. These theories highlight how social inequities and cultural capital relating to culture and class affect participation processes and outcomes. An unintended consequence of constructing children within a traditional liberal account of rights is reduced recognition of the culturally contested nature of an individualistic construction of children. Constructing children in this way excises children from their social backgrounds and promotes the notion of a ‘universal child’. With a particular focus on class, culture and professional paradigms, I argue that the ways children’s views are elicited, the content of those views, and how they are interpreted, are subject to a set of professional assumptions that take little cognisance of the social backround of children. This includes norms relating to class and culture, and the oppressive structural relations relating to those two factors including racialisation. Concepts such as attachment theory, the ‘adultification’ of children of colour, the diminishing of Indigenous concepts of children and childhood, and the pre-eminence of the ‘concerted cultivation’ middle class parenting style are some ways this lack of recognition is enacted. The child’s cultural worldview and manner of expressing it may clash with professional cultures that prefer and reward verbal expression, independence, and entitlement when negotiating preferences with representatives of powerful social institutions (such as child protection systems). Many children may not comply with this expectation due to cultural and class socialisation processes, and the oppressive histories of child protection systems. As most child protection organisations must engage in constant translation of children’s cultural capital to ensure participation, devolving authority and resources to affected communities may better serve children's rights to participation. Communities reflecting children’s own may be more able to offer full recognition to children and enable theirparticipation more effectively.

Suggested Citation

  • Keddell, Emily, 2023. "Recognising the embedded child in child protection: Children’s participation, inequalities and cultural capital," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:cysrev:v:147:y:2023:i:c:s0190740923000105
    DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2023.106815
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190740923000105
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.childyouth.2023.106815?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Emily Keddell & Gabrielle Davie, 2018. "Inequalities and Child Protection System Contact in Aotearoa New Zealand: Developing a Conceptual Framework and Research Agenda," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-14, June.
    2. Antwi-Boasiako, Kofi & Fallon, Barbara & King, Bryn & Trocmé, Nico & Fluke, John, 2021. "Examining decision-making tools and child welfare involvement among Black families in Ontario, Canada," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 126(C).
    3. Nicole Hennum, 2014. "Developing Child-Centered Social Policies: When Professionalism Takes Over," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 3(3), pages 1-19, August.
    4. Arbeiter, Ere & Toros, Karmen, 2017. "Participatory discourse: Engagement in the context of child protection assessment practices from the perspectives of child protection workers, parents and children," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 17-27.
    5. Keddell, Emily & Davie, Gabrielle & Barson, Dave, 2019. "Child protection inequalities in Aotearoa New Zealand: Social gradient and the ‘inverse intervention law’," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 1-1.
    6. Emily Keddell, 2022. "Mechanisms of Inequity: The Impact of Instrumental Biases in the Child Protection System," Societies, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-19, May.
    7. Bessell, Sharon, 2011. "Participation in decision-making in out-of-home care in Australia: What do young people say?," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 496-501, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Judith Cashmore & Peiling Kong & Meredith McLaine, 2023. "Children’s Participation in Care and Protection Decision-Making Matters," Laws, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-26, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Berit Skauge & Anita Skårstad Storhaug & Edgar Marthinsen, 2021. "The What, Why and How of Child Participation—A Review of the Conceptualization of “Child Participation” in Child Welfare," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-15, February.
    2. Emily Keddell, 2022. "Mechanisms of Inequity: The Impact of Instrumental Biases in the Child Protection System," Societies, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-19, May.
    3. Hatlelid Føleide, Marie, 2021. "Three conversation practices illuminating how children’s views and wishes are explored in care proceedings: An analysis of 22 children’s spokespersons’ accounts," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    4. Rapsey, C.M. & Rolston, Cassandra J., 2020. "Fostering the family, not just the child: Exploring the value of a residential family preservation programme from the perspectives of service users and staff," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    5. Lehtme, Rafaela & Toros, Karmen, 2020. "Parental engagement in child protection assessment practice: Voices from parents," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    6. Saar-Heiman, Yuval, 2023. "Power with and power over: Social workers’ reflections on their use of power when talking with parents about child welfare concerns," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    7. Erika Palmer, 2018. "The Heavy Cost of Care: Systemic Challenges in Norwegian Work Absenteeism," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-17, June.
    8. Elizabeth Fernandez, 2014. "Child Protection and Vulnerable Families: Trends and Issues in the Australian Context," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 3(4), pages 1-24, October.
    9. Diana N. Teixeira & Isabel Narciso & Margarida R. Henriques, 2022. "Driving for Success in Family Reunification—Professionals’ Views on Intervention," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(24), pages 1-20, December.
    10. Gazit, Matan & Perry-Hazan, Lotem, 2020. "Disadvantaged youth’s participation in collective decision making," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    11. Goh, Esther C.L. & Baruch, Herzl, 2018. "Young persons as epistemological agents in social work assessment and intervention," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 88-95.
    12. Keddell, Emily & Davie, Gabrielle & Barson, Dave, 2019. "Child protection inequalities in Aotearoa New Zealand: Social gradient and the ‘inverse intervention law’," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 1-1.
    13. Hambrick, Erin P. & Oppenheim-Weller, Shani & N'zi, Amanda M. & Taussig, Heather N., 2016. "Mental health interventions for children in foster care: A systematic review," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 65-77.
    14. Ivana Borić & Andrea Ćosić & Iva Prskalo, 2021. "Experiences of Adolescent Participation in Educational Institutions in Croatia," Societies, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-17, December.
    15. Webb, Calum & Bywaters, Paul & Scourfield, Jonathan & McCartan, Claire & Bunting, Lisa & Davidson, Gavin & Morris, Kate, 2020. "Untangling child welfare inequalities and the ‘Inverse Intervention Law’ in England," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    16. Burger, Kaspar, 2017. "The role of social and psychological resources in children's perception of their participation rights," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 139-147.
    17. van Bijleveld, G.G. & Dedding, C.W.M. & Bunders-Aelen, J.F.G., 2014. "Seeing eye to eye or not? Young people's and child protection workers' perspectives on children's participation within the Dutch child protection and welfare services," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(P3), pages 253-259.
    18. Charest-Belzile, Dorothée & Drapeau, Sylvie & Ivers, Hans, 2020. "Parental engagement in child protection services: A multidimensional, longitudinal and interactive framework," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    19. Strömpl, Judit & Luhamaa, Katre, 2020. "Child participation in child welfare removals through the looking glass: Estonian children’s and professionals’ perspectives compared," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    20. Bekaert, S. & Paavilainen, E. & Schecke, H. & Baldacchino, A. & Jouet, E. & Zabłocka – Żytka, L. & Bachi, B. & Bartoli, F. & Carrà, G. & Cioni, R.M. & Crocamo, C. & Appleton, J.V., 2021. "Family members’ perspectives of child protection services, a metasynthesis of the literature," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 128(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:cysrev:v:147:y:2023:i:c:s0190740923000105. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.