Children’s Agency and Welfare Organizations from an Intergenerational Perspective

Living reference work entry
Part of the Geographies of Children and Young People book series (GCYP, volume 5)


“Agency” is one of the key concepts of Childhood Studies and Children’s Geographies. A large number of recent studies have empirically contested a prevailing naturalistic and liberal understanding of agency as a general human property. Nevertheless, the presented theoretical alternatives often assume there is a dichotomy between actors on the one hand and society on the other and therefore reproduce a notion of children as outsiders to society. As an alternative, a relational approach to agency will be suggested that is able to work as a shared social theoretical framework for different post-structuralist concepts recently stimulating further research in Children’s Geographies. A relational understanding is especially helpful regarding children’s agency in respect to welfare organizations. Following Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC), considerable research interest has arisen in welfare states’ and societies’ awareness of children’s voices. This leads to the empirical question of children’s capacities to participate in welfare organizations. Many of the studies within this field focus on face-to-face interactions between individual professionals and children and come to rather critical and disillusioning results stating that children’s voices often do not have any effect in practice or are too quickly transformed into an institutional logic. But other studies are also able to show that children’s agency does not just depend on individual professionals’ awareness but is much more networked, “messy,” and produced in several different (intergenerational) relations.


Agency Organization Welfare State Social Theory Relationalism Citizenship Participation Institutionalization of Childhood 


  1. Alanen, L. (2009). Generational order. In J. Qvortrup, W. A. Corsaro, & M.-S. Honig (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of childhood studies (pp. 159–174). Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  2. Bell, S. A., & Aggleton, P. (2012). Time to invest in a ‘counterpublic health’ approach. Promoting sexual health amongst sexually active young people in rural Uganda. Children’s Geographies, 10(4), 385–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bollig, S., & Kelle, H. (2014). Children as actors or as participants of practices? The challenges of practice theories to an actor-centered sociology of childhood. Zeitschrift für Soziologie der Erziehung und Sozialisation, 34(3), 265–281.Google Scholar
  4. Bordonaro, L. I., & Payne, R. (2012). Ambiguous agency. Critical perspectives on social interventions with children and youth in Africa. Children’s Geographies, 10(4), 365–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bühler-Niederberger, D., & Schwittek, J. (2014). Young children in Kyrgyzstan. Agency in tight hierarchical structures. Childhood, 21(4), 502–516.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cairns, L. (2006). Participation with purpose. The right to be heard. In E. K. M. Tisdall, J. M. Davis, M. Hill, & A. Prout (Eds.), Children, young people and social inclusion. Participation for what? (pp. 217–234). Bristol: Policy.Google Scholar
  7. Christensen, P. H., & Prout, A. (2005). Anthropological and sociological perspectives on the study of children. In S. Greene & D. Hogan (Eds.), Researching children’s experience. Approaches and methods (pp. 42–60). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  8. Cockburn, T. (2013). Rethinking children’s citizenship. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  9. Corsaro, W. A. (2005). Collective action and agency in young children’s peer cultures. In J. Qvortrup (Ed.), Studies in modern childhood. Society, agency, culture (pp. 231–247). Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave and Macmillian.Google Scholar
  10. DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited. Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Emond, R. (2010). Caring as a moral, practical and powerful endeavour. Peer care in a Cambodian orphanage. British Journal of Social Work, 40(1), 63–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eriksson, M. (2012). Participation for children exposed to domestic violence? Social workers’ approaches and children’s strategies. European Journal of Social Work, 15(2), 205–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Esser, F. (2009). Kinderwelten – Gegenwelten? Pädagogische Impulse aus der Neuen Kindheitsforschung. Baltmannsweiler: Schneider Hohengehren.Google Scholar
  14. Esser, F. (2013a). Das Kind als Hybrid. Empirische Kinderforschung (1896–1914). Weinheim/München: Beltz Juventa.Google Scholar
  15. Esser, F. (2013b). Familienkindheit als sozialpädagogische Herstellungsleistung. Ethnographische Betrachtungen zu ‚familienähnlichen’ Formen der Heimerziehung. Diskurs Kindheits- und Jugendforschung, 8(2), 163–176.Google Scholar
  16. Esser, F. (2016). Neither “thick” nor “thin”. Reconceptualising agency and childhood relationally. In F. Eßer, M. S. Baader, T. Betz, & B. Hungerland (Eds.), Reconceptualising agency and childhood. New perspectives in childhood studies (pp. 48–61). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Esser, F., Baader, M. S., Betz, T., & Hungerland, B. (Eds.). (2016). Reconceptualising agency and childhood. New perspectives in childhood studies. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  18. Fernqvist, S. (2011). Redefining participation? On the positioning of children in Swedish welfare benefits appeals. Childhood, 18(2), 227–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fuchs, S. (2001). Beyond agency. Sociological Theory, 19(1), 24–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Giddens, A. (1984). The constitution of society. Outline of the theory of structuration. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  21. Hays, S. (1994). Structure and agency and the sticky problem of culture. Sociological Theory, 12(1), 57–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Holloway, S. L. (2014). Changing children’s geographies. Children’s Geographies, 12(4), 377–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Holloway, S. L., & Pimlott-Wilson, H. (2014). Enriching children, institutionalizing childhood? Geographies of play, extracurricular activities, and parenting in England. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 104(3), 613–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Horwath, J., Kalyva, E., & Spyrou, S. (2012). “I want my experiences to make a difference”: Promoting participation in policy-making and service development by young people who have experienced violence. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(1), 155–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Iversen, C. (2014). Predetermined participation: Social workers evaluating children’s agency in domestic violence interventions. Childhood, 21(2), 274–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. James, A. (2009). Agency. In J. Qvortrup, W. A. Corsaro, & M.-S. Honig (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of childhood studies (pp. 34–45). Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  27. James, A., & James, A. (2012). Key concepts in childhood studies (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. James, A., & Prout, A. (1996). Strategies and structures. Towards a new perspective on children’s experiences of family life. In J. Brannen & M. O’Brien (Eds.), Children in families. Research and policy (pp. 41–52). London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  29. Jeffrey, C. (2012). Geographies of children and youth II: Global youth agency. Progress in Human Geography, 36(2), 245–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jensen, K. B. (2014). Space-time geography of female live-in child domestic workers in Dhaka, Bangladesh. Children’s Geographies, 12(2), 154–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Katz, E. (2013). Domestic violence, children’s agency and mother–child relationships: Towards a more advanced model. Children & Society, 27, 1–11.Google Scholar
  32. Klocker, N. (2007). An example of ‘thin’ agency: Child domestic workers in Tanzania. In R. Panell, S. Punch, & E. Robson (Eds.), Global perspectives on rural childhood and youth: Young rural lives (pp. 83–94). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  33. Kohli, R. K. S., Connolly, H., & Warman, A. (2010). Food and its meaning for asylum seeking children and young people in foster care. Children’s Geographies, 8(3), 233–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Konstantoni, K. (2012). Children’s peer relationships and social identities: Exploring cases of young children’s agency and complex interdependencies from the Minority World. Children’s Geographies, 10(3), 337–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kraftl, P. (2013). Beyond ‘voice’, beyond ‘agency’, beyond ‘politics’? Hybrid childhoods and some critical reflections on children’s emotional geographies. Emotion, Space and Society, 9, 13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Larkins, C. (2014). Enacting children’s citizenship. Developing understandings of how children enact themselves as citizens through actions and acts of citizenship. Childhood, 21(1), 7–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social. An introduction to actor-network-theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Moosa-Mitha, M. (2005). A difference-centred alternative to theorization of children’s citizenship rights. Citizenship Studies, 9(4), 369–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Moran-Ellis, J. (2013). Kinder als soziale Akteure: Agency und soziale Kompetenz. Soziologische Reflektionen früher Kindheit. Neue Praxis, 43(4), 319–336.Google Scholar
  40. Muftee, M. (2013). Children’s agency in resettlement. A study of Swedish cultural orientation programs in Kenya and Sudan. Children’s Geographies, 1–18. doi:10.1080/14733285.2013.828451.Google Scholar
  41. Opie, I., & Opie, P. (1959). The lore and language of schoolchildren. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Oswell, D. (2013). The agency of children. From family to global human rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Payne, R. (2012). ‘Extraordinary survivors’ or ‘ordinary lives’? Embracing ‘everyday agency’ in social interventions with child-headed households in Zambia. Children’s Geographies, 10(4), 399–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pinkney, S. (2011). Participation and emotions: Troubling encounters between children and social welfare professionals. Children & Society, 25(1), 37–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Place, B. (2000). Constructing the bodies of ill children in the intensive care unit. In A. Prout (Ed.), The body, childhood and society (pp. 172–194). Houndmills: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Polvere, L. (2014). Agency in institutionalised youth. A critical inquiry. Children & Society, 28, 182–193.Google Scholar
  47. Prout, A. (2000). Childhood bodies. Construction, agency and hybridity. In A. Prout (Ed.), The body, childhood and society (pp. 1–18). Houndmills: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Prout, A., & James, A. (1990). 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/New York/Philadelphia: Routledge/Falmer.Google Scholar
  49. Punch, S. (2016). Exploring children’s agency across majority and minority world contexts. In F. Esser, M. S. Baader, T. Betz, & B. Hungerland (Eds.), Reconceptualising agency and childhood. New perspectives in childhood studies (pp. 183–196). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  50. Punch, S., & McIntosh, I. (2014). ‘Food is a funny thing within residential child care’: Intergenerational relationships and food practices in residential care. Childhood, 21(1), 72–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Redmond, G. (2010). Children’s agency and the welfare state. Policy priorities and contradictions in Australia and the UK. Childhood, 17(4), 470–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ryan, K. W. (2011). The new wave of childhood studies: Breaking the grip of bio-social dualism? Childhood, 19(4), 439–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Tisdall, E. K. M., & Punch, S. (2012). Not so ‘new’? Looking critically at childhood studies. Children’s Geographies, 10(3), 249–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tronto, J. C. (1993/2009). Moral boundaries. A political argument for an ethic of care. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  55. Valentine, K. (2011). Accounting for agency. Children & Society, 25, 347–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Vincent, C., & Ball, S. J. (2007). ‘Making up’ the middle class child. Families, activities and class dispositions. Sociology, 41(6), 1061–1077.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Warming, H. (2006). “How can you know? You’re not a foster child”: Dilemmas and possibilities of giving voice to children in foster care. Children, Youth and Environments, 16(2), 28–50.Google Scholar
  58. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wihstutz, A. (2011). Working vulnerability. Agency of caring children and children’s rights. Childhood, 18(4), 447–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Woodyer, T. (2008). The body as research tool. Embodied practice and children’s geographies. Children’s Geographies, 6(4), 349–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Zeiher, H. (2009). Institutionalization as a secular trend. In J. Qvortrup, W. A. Corsaro, & M.-S. Honig (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of childhood studies (pp. 127–139). Basingstoke, Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social Pedagogy and Organisation StudiesUniversity of HildesheimHildesheimGermany

Personalised recommendations