Mapping Children’s Presence in the Neighbourhood

Chapter

Abstract

Within Gert Biesta’s framework on civic learning, public spaces are considered as the main fields where processes of civic learning can take place. Learning is always ‘in place and time’. Place matters, not only as a spatial background or set of conditions that can facilitate or hinder the learning process, but as a pedagogical process in itself. So in order to facilitate processes of civic learning, which are – as Biesta mentions – always out of order, we first need to understand the pedagogical meaning of the neighbourhood. Taking children’s here-and-now citizenship seriously influences the role of educational research and of the educational researcher. In this chapter, I build up a methodological framework for mapping children’s presence in the neighbourhood. Three questions about children’s fellow citizenship underpin this framework. How are children able to be present in their neighbourhood? How are children allowed to be present in their neighbourhood? And how are children willing to be present in their neighbourhood? An analysis of three neighbourhoods in the city of Ghent (Belgium) with these questions shows that neighbourhoods differ by the opportunities and limitations they offer in relation to civic learning. Children contest and shift the spatial and social boundaries within their neighbourhood sporadically and gradually.

Keywords

Social Identity Public Space Fellow Citizen Good Neighbourhood Pedagogical Discussion 
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. Bernet, J. T. (Ed.). (1990). The educating city. I congrés internacional de ciutats educadores. Barcelona.Google Scholar
  2. Biesta, G. (2011). Learning democracy in school and society. Education, lifelong learning and the politics of citizenship. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blinkert, B. (2004). Quality of the city for children: Chaos and order. Children, Youth and Environments, 14(2), 99–112.Google Scholar
  4. Blokland, T. (2003). Urban bonds. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  5. Blondeel, P. (2005). Reading and (re)writing the city: The use of the habitus concept in urban research and development. Paper voorgesteld op International Conference ‘Doing, thinking, feeling home: The mental geography of residential environments’, Delft.Google Scholar
  6. Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. (1992). An invitation to reflexive sociology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  7. Cope, M. (2006). Lots of opportunity project (LOOP): Empowering children’s vision for neighbourhood spaces [Electronic Version]. Retrieved December 1, 2006, from http://www.geog.buffalo.edu/research/geokids
  8. De Visscher, S., & Bouverne-De Bie, M. (2008). Recognising urban public space as a co-educator: Children’s socialization in Ghent. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32(3), 604–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Etzioni, A. (Ed.). (1998). The essentialist communitarian reader. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  10. Giddens, A. (1997). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  11. Hiemstra, R. (1972). The educative community. Linking the community, education and family. Lincoln: Professional Educators Publications.Google Scholar
  12. Holloway, S. L., & Valentine, G. (2000). Spatiality and the new social studies of childhood. Sociology, 34(4), 763–783.Google Scholar
  13. James, A., & Prout, A. (Eds.). (1997). Constructing and reconstructing childhood. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  14. Jans, M. (2004). Children as citizens. Towards a contemporary notion of child participation. Childhood, 11(1), 27–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kampmann, J. (2004). Societalization of childhood: New opportunities? New demands? In H. Brembeck, B. Johansson, & J. Kampmann (Eds.), Beyond the competent child (pp. 127–152). Roskilde: Roskilde University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Kearns, A., & Parkinson, M. (2001). The significance of neighbourhood. Urban Studies, 38(12), 2103–2110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lawy, R., & Biesta, G. (2006). Citizenship-as-practice: The educational implication of an inclusive and relational understanding of citizenship. British Journal of Educational Studies, 54(1), 34–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Linters, A. (1990). Bouwen in de industriële tijd: Een evenwicht tussen noden en mogelijkheden. In De beschikbare ruimte: reflecties over bouwen (pp. 74–93). Tielt: Lannoo.Google Scholar
  19. Lofland, L. H. (1998). The public realm. Exploring the city’s quintessential social territory. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  20. Lynn, M. (2006). Discourses of community: Challenges for social work. International Journal of Social Welfare, 15, 110–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Malone, K. (2002). Street life: Youth, culture and competing uses of public space. Environment and Urbanization, 14(2), 157–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Massey, D. (1995). The conceptualization of place. In D. Massey & P. Jess (Eds.), A place in the world? Places, cultures and globalization (pp. 215–239). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Nespor, J. (1998). The meaning of research: Kids as subjects and kids as inquirers. Qualitative Inquiry, 4(3), 369–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pink, W. T., & Noblit, G. W. (Eds.). (2007). International handbook of urban education. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  25. Schugurensky, D., & Myers, J. P. (2008). Informal civic learning through engagement in local democracy: The case of the seniors’ task force of healthy city Toronto. In K. Church (Ed.), Learning through community: Exploring participatory practices. Toronto: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. Shaw, M. (2008). Community development and the politics of community. Community Development Journal, 43(1), 24–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Silk, J. S., Sessa, F. M., Morris, A. S., Steinberg, L., & Avenevoli, S. (2004). Neighborhood cohesion as a buffer against hostile maternal parenting. Journal of Family Psychology, 18(1), 135–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Soenen, R. (2006). Het kleine ontmoeten: over het sociale karakter van de stad. Antwerpen: Garant.Google Scholar
  29. Ward, S. V. (Ed.). (1992). The garden city: Past, present and future. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. Zeiher, H., Devine, D., Kjorholt, A. T., & Strandell, H. (Eds.). (2007). Flexible childhood? Exploring children’s welfare in time and space. Odense: University Press of Southern Denmark.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Education, Health and Social WorkUniversity College GhentGhentBelgium

Personalised recommendations