Child Inclusion in Programming
May 2025 GLC Monthly Learning Call Brief
Call Summary
Our May call was a long time coming as many GLC members have brought up their interests and efforts in including their minor beneficiaries in the planning, leadership, and evaluation of their project and programs. The big questions are why and how? This month’s call was presented by Dr. Dave Scott of Fuller Seminary who shared from his two decades of researching, practicing, and teaching about child inclusion and participation.
Dr. Scott’s presentation began with a bit of a history lesson to place the current perspectives in child inclusion. He walked us through the story of how the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child came to be and then what that document includes. We then focused specifically on Article 12 which outlines that children have the right to participate in decisions about their own lives at a developmentally appropriate level. Essentially, the document insists that children are subjects, rather than objects to be acted on by adults.
We discussed some of the common objections to child participation: 1) that children will have anonymous decision making past their capabilities, 2) that adults will be undermined, 3) that child participation is culturally inappropriate in many settings. Finally, Dr. Scott presented several different models of child participation ending in a model that describes the adult’s responsibility to provide space and voice, which are the right of a child to express a view, as well as audience and influence, which are the right to have those views influence other people.
The call finished with a discussion among GLC members. Both calls noted that researching with child participation can be very challenging and cause push back from ethical review boards. However, we recognize that NOT including children in research about themselves is even more problematic. We noted the therapeutic value of listening to children and some of the challenges of the desire to protect them, particularly in storytelling aspects when it comes to child survivors of trafficking. Faith from Azadi Kenya mentioned that they are working on a framework for working with child survivors. We also discussed some of the cultural challenges, particularly in cultures that are patron/client based or that have a significant distance between the roles of elders and children and were encouraged to think through “where are children allowed autonomy in this culture,” and work from there. Adrian Alexander from Free the Slaves mentioned a Canada based project called Shaking the Movers in which One Child Network will be looking at child sexual exploitation and creating recommendations for governments from child survivors. Finally, both calls noted that many of the approaches of treating adult survivors look a lot like the models of when children are treated badly i.e. adult survivors are seen as children without rights in many programs in our sector.
What We Learned
The history of child participation is 100 years old, but children have been legally guaranteed rights through the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (ratified by all nations but the United States) since 1989.
Several models of child participation exist, and all of them emphasize children having a voice and an audience that hears and responds.
Objections to child participation can generally be overcome simply through humility. When we realize that adults are not “finished,” but rather older humans who are still learning and developing, it is easier to see children as peers who should be respected, heard, and given the ability to make choices about their own lives.
The negative impact of not including survivors in meaningful ways in our organizations, research, and programs are the same negative impacts of not including children.
Implications and Future Actions
Like so many other things, we recognize that cultural relevance is very important. Current models of child participation are primarily Western. We should consult the cultures that we are in to find out the right ways to listen to children and include them. This might take an intermediary or an advocate to speak for the child in certain situations.
We would do well to add sections on children to our toolkits on survivor inclusion.
Ethics boards should be challenged when they try to exclude child participation in research. It IS more challenging to include children, but that should not be a reason that we don’t do so, but rather inspire us to create guidelines and best practices when doing so.
Child survivors are often very resistant to adult control, especially when they have been separated from their primary caregivers and experienced taking care of themselves. To take back their autonomy is unlikely to achieve the results we want.
Resource List & Bibliography
Cahill, Helen, and Babak Dadvand. 2018. “Re-Conceptualising Youth Participation: A Framework to Inform Action.” Children and Youth Services Review 95 (December):243–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.11.001.
Gal, Ṭali, and Benedetta Faedi Duramy, eds. 2015. International Perspectives and Empirical Findings on Child Participation: From Social Exclusion to Child-Inclusive Policies. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. - The Introduction of this book is exceptionally good!
O’Neill, Tom, and Dawn Zinga. 2016. Children’s Rights: Multidisciplinary Approaches to Participation and Protection.
Redmore, Ned. 2020. “Seen and Heard: Exploring Participation, Engagement and Voice for Children with Disabilities.” Children & Society 34 (3): 234–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12363.
Shier, H. (2001). Pathways to participation: openings, opportunities and obligations.
Children & Society, 15(2), 107–117.
The below resources are ones that referenced in the call
Ennew, Judith. 2000. Street and Working Children: A Guide to Planning. Rev. and Updated 2nd. London, UK: Save the Children.
Lundy, L. (2007). “Voice” is not enough: Conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. British Educational Research Journal, 33(6), 927–942.
