Child Participation to Build Citizenship and to Transform the School Territory in a Global World

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the review of the research can be more concise with an overview of all the variables you consider.  Reggio, pictures, drawings, etc. as research methodology.  some of the questions asked of children seem 'hidden answers'... not sufficiently open-ended

Comments on the Quality of English Language

commas

shorter sentences in some cases

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Thank you very much for your contributions, which have undoubtedly improved the article.

According to your suggestions we have made the following changes (in red in the text):

 

-We have clarified the use of data collection and documentation techniques.

-We have reviewed the questions asked to the children.

 

Thank you very much for your comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments on the manuscript Socsc1-2963311: Child participation to build citizenship and to transform the

Comments to the Author:

Thank you for your submission. It reads well and the article have an interesting story to tell.

This part could be improved:

The focus, and aim of this study is clearly stated, but a research question missing. I would recommend writing down a clear research question based on the aim and purpose of the study.

Aspects connected to methodology must be improved to achieve better transparency in the article. A better structure for the various methods, with procedures on how the methods were carried out. For example, how were conversations and focus group interviews with the children conducted? Who conducted the conversations and the interviews, and how many children were present together in the interview? How did the interview situation work, were all the children equally active in the conversation? Were the focus groups interviews recorded and transcribed, anything that was challenging?  Aspects like this would also strengthen the study's quality linked to validity reliability.

Misses a discussion in the article about having children as informants in research. Possibilities, limitations, and not least ethical dimensions in that it is us as researchers who interpret meaning from the children's actions and expressions. A clearer ethical discussion about interpreting and writing out children's percpectives should be included in the article (example pointed out by Halldén, 2003).

Results are presented in a clear way, but a more explicit analysis would strengthen the study's transparency and quality.

Incidentally, it lacks a more explicit theoretical grounding, which also would have strengthened the scientific aspects of the article.

The authors discuss some aspects according to strengths and limitations of the study like focus only on one school, and possible interference of the research team during the observations and documentations, is there any limitation also according to the design, methods, procedures?

Taken together, there are some shortcomings in the manuscript that must be corrected through a major revision.

​

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your contributions, which have undoubtedly improved the article.

According to your suggestions we have made the following changes (in red in the text):

 

-We have improved the explanation of different questions about the methodology.

-We have clarified the role of children within this participatory research and discussed some issues with the help of the suggested authors (references).

-We have reworded the research question.

-We have made explicit some ethical issues arising from the role of children in this participatory research.

-We have expanded the bibliographical references in the theoretical framework.

-We have improved the wording of the article.

- We have expanded on the strengths and weaknesses of the research in the final section.

 

Thank you very much for your comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments:

This paper describes an excellent project, and the inclusion of the mayor and representative from the town council demonstrates the beginnings of deep engagement between the school and community. However, the manuscript is more descriptive than analytical, with few assertions supported with references to the literature and instances of phrases like ‘we believe’ weakening the discussions.  The author/s also seem to be conflating child participation with the idea of children as co-investigators.  The data presented here suggest that the children made very meaningful contributions to the project and participated in some productive intergenerational discussions, but this does not equate to children as co-investigators. The notions of children’s rights and participation also seem to be conflated. On the topic of children’s rights, it would be worth noting that Spain ratified the UNCRC on 6 December 1990. This demonstrates that Spain has an obligation to uphold the rights within the Convention. A much more sophisticated discussion of the methodology is also needed, together with a discussion of how the data were analysed.  I have provided very detailed feedback until about page 9, as after that the discussion becomes almost purely descriptive. This feedback is not intended to be disparaging to the researchers involved, as the project clearly had strong outcomes and I would like to see this work given attention. However, I do not believe it can be published in its current form.

Detailed comments:

Page 1, lines 18-19: It is indeed true that different eras have given rise to different constructions and definitions of childhood. However, readers who are not familiar with these would appreciate examples such as romantic notions of children as innocent and in need of protection (see for example, Rousseau, 2007) or children as developing; a view shaped by the work of Jean Piaget.

Page 1, lines 21-22: The sentence ‘Being aware of these components favours the construction of contexts of reflection and action that give value to these qualities’ is a bit confusing. Try tweaking slightly to improve clarity for the reader.

Page 1, paragraph 2:  This paragraph appears to suggest that there is only one model of childhood that is clearly committed to developing a relationship with the world, etc. I don’t think this is the intention of the authors, however this needs deeper discussion of the way the view of children as competent and capable rights holders has developed from a shift in the sociology of childhood (see for example, the work of James & Prout; Nick Lee; Mayall and Mason & Hood). It is within this discussion that the authors should introduce Reggio Emilia.

Page 1, lines 34-35:  Best to avoid phrases like ‘based on our interpretations’ as it is unclear who ‘our’ refers to – the authors? The audience? Society more broadly?

Page 1, lines 35-36: ‘’There are multiple childhoods and educational contexts based on our interpretations of what they are or should be’ – this needs some deeper discussion. What are these multiple childhoods and educational contexts?

Page 1, lines 37-39: It is unclear how the quote ‘rich child makes a rich pedagogue …’ relates to the discussion of the social construction of childhood.  It seems to me that you may be conflating sociological issues with social constructions of childhood. 

Page 1, lines 40-44. This section seems to be claiming that only the research conducted by the author/s has found that knowledge construction is intersubjective.  It is important to draw from the literature here.  

Page 2, lines 45-56. Nothing here is supported by the literature, which weakens your argument considerably. For example, the statement ‘school institutions themselves impoverish their capacities’ – while this may be true, it needs to be substantiated in order to avoid coming across as the author/s opinion/s.

Page 2, lines 60-62. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) does not define child participation as the right to be heard and taken into account in all matters that affect them. Rather, article 12 stipulates this as a right, in and of itself. I strongly advise the author/s to draw from the work of Laura Lundy here and Jenna Gillett-Swan here.

Page 2, lines 63-64: The UNCRC does not explicitly state that children should play an active role in the creation of educational policies.  Rather, Article 12 is one of four general principles of the Convention, which means that it needs to be considered in the interpretation and implementation of all other rights that it protects. This includes children’s right to education as outlined in article 28.

Page 2, lines 69-71: This needs deeper discussion of power, as it is not something that adults bestow upon children in an act of generosity, but an intangible process (See the work on Susan Groundwater-Smith and Nicole Mockler for more on this). Foucault’s work on power would work well here to help develop a more sophisticated academic argument.

Page 2, lines 78-79: How are children positioned as inferior? This could be supported with some discussion of school systems as inherently hierarchical which typically deny children and adults equivalent power relations and representation. This could be supported with a discussion of dominant Western views of children as needing to progress through normative stages of development before being seen as able to speak on their own behalf – see for example, Gallacher and Gallagher (2008).

Page 2, line 89: I suggest adding the work of Dewey here, as he discussed democracy as a system of government vs democracy as a way of life – which view of democracy is being used here?

Page 2, lines 90-92: (1) ‘Where children are taught to identify with adult ways of life’ – it is unclear how and why this happens and therefore needs deeper discussion. Also avoid broad and generalizing statements of ‘schools should’. The terms ‘protagonism’, ‘construction of their own subjectivity’ and ‘social transformation’ need at least some description – assume the reader is unfamiliar with them.

Page 2, lines 95-96: What is meant by the ‘territory’ that children inhabit? I would also strongly question the idea that children belong to an institution.

Page 3, lines 97-100: Some discussion of identity and citizenship is needed to formulate a solid academic argument.

Page 3, line 104: Please don’t assume that all scholars are male. Novella’s first name is Ana.

Page 3, line 107: I am curious to know what ‘children’s culture’ is, particularly given that the discussion of a range of contexts – can there really be a single children’s culture?

Page 3, line 110: The terms ‘environments’ and ‘territories’ need some explanation – what is the difference between them?

Page 3, lines 110-120: This section is a bit unclear. It seems to suggests that children are actively involved in educational spaces before very suddenly shifting to aesthetic designs of educational and speaking spaces before shifting again to the images of the child. Reviewing some of the literature relating to ‘space and place’ may help here.

Page 3, lines 124-125: How are children’s territories created? Defining what is meant by this term early on would help to clarify this as well.

Page 3, lines 125-127: This section needs more discussion – particularly what is meant by spatially democratic pedagogy, spatial determinism and the conquest of a territory. Readers may not be familiar with these terms and/or how they relate to one another.

Page 3, line 130: It is not sufficient to simply mention Einarsdottir and Clark, you need to engage with their work and explain how it relates to the discussion at hand.

Page 3, lines 131-140: Nothing in this section is supported with references to the literature, which makes this come across as the opinion/s of the author/s.

Page 3, line 145: It is clear now why aesthetics of learning spaces was introduced – consider having something in the abstract and/or introduction to make this connection clear earlier.

Page 4, lines 153-155: There is no mention of what the theoretical or empirical reference frameworks are.

Page 4, lines 164-168: Does the analysis of the image of childhood in this section refer to the school’s image of childhood, or that of society more broadly? This just needs a slight tweak to improve clarity.

Page 4, line 168: It is unclear where the right of children to their own environment comes from.

Page 4, line 170. Best not to say the school is the target of the project. It would be better to say something like the entire school was involved in the project, with 15 teachers, 144 pupils and their families agreeing to participate.

Page 4, line 176: how did the children become co-investigators?

Page 4, methodology section.  It would be more clear if the explanation of the terms Research, Action and Participatory were in the same order as the acronym – thus Participatory, then Action followed by Research.  However, I find it concerning that there is not one reference to the methodological literature here.  Participatory Action Research is quite complex in nature and needs some explanation for readers who may be unfamiliar with this methodology. Also, is there a diagram for the four pedagogical axes? This would add clarity to your discussion.

Page 5, lines 200-205: This discussion should be in past tense.

Page 5, lines 207-213: The statement, ‘all ethical considerations … were taken into account’ is too vague. What were these considerations, and how were they addressed?  I’m also wondering what model was different for the infant and primary students? Was it the consent form? How did the children choose to participate – was it simply filling in the consent form or were other factors involved, such as opportunities to ask questions about the research?

Page 5, lines 236-257: It is difficult to see how the data collection fits with the four pedagogical axes or participatory action research. It seems to me that the children were certainly research participants who were able to contribute in a variety of meaningful ways. However, it is unclear how they were co-investigators, as this would involve them being part of the process of at least some basic data analysis. Drawings and photographs are excellent ways to include children as research participants but long lists of references are an insufficient justification. This needs a much stronger discussion of why drawings/photographs? What is it that makes these data collection techniques suitable? Similarly, simply saying that conversations/focus groups have been used is insufficient – why have these been incorporated? I’m also curious as to whether all the children contributed to the project in all these ways. In a similar way, simply mentioning observations and peer mentoring, with no reference to the literature, and with no justification does not make for a strong discussion of your data collection techniques.

Page 6, lines 259-270: In this section, the reader is left guessing that the process of introspection, self-knowledge and self-evaluation was undertaken by the teachers. The discussion of the how the children and their families were involved doesn’t become clear until line 271.  Are there any photographs of these (deidentified) data? One or two examples would support what you are saying. However, I come back to my concern that the children were included as participants rather than co-investigators.

Page 6, lines 275-278: This is a lovely description but fails to account for how it was put together – did the children and teachers decide on how this was to be displayed?

 Page 6, line 281: Avoid using phrases like ‘seduce the children’ which can easily be misconstrued as having sexual connotations.

Page 6, lines 284-285: Again, there is evidence of the children participating in the research in meaningful ways, but not as co-investigators who are also involved in analysing the data, e.g. conducting a basic thematic analysis, and making recommendations. This also goes for lines 293-298.

Page 7, line 299: ‘helped the teachers to rethink the school’s educational project’ – this sentence again suggests that the teachers were co-investigators, with the children making valuable contributions as research participants.

Page 7, line 305: The comment about incorporating the community into pedagogy is critical and as such, warrants deeper discussion.

Page 7, lines 305-308: This section is much too vague. How were drawings, photographs, conversations, tours etc incorporated and why?

Page 7, lines 310-322: The display of photographs is creative but much too small and have little meaning without any discussion of the context in which they were created and why.

Page 7 generally: Nothing on this page is referenced or supported by the literature. To say ‘it seems important to us’ is not sufficient.

Page 7: personal note – I love the ‘detectives of spaces’ activity. This is a great way to involve children as research participants. Louise Phillips has done similar things in Australia.

Page 8: Do you have express permission from the participants to publish the photographs?

Page 9, lines 361-368: The videos should have been included in the methods section. Were the students part of the process of analysing what was said in these videos? If not, then they were participants, not co-investigators. I think it is unhelpful to frame the students’ suggestions as demands as it comes across as quite hostile. I suggest that recommendations would be a better word.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper is generally fairly easy to read, but does need to progress more logically in some places.

Minor grammatical points:

Page 1, line 6: ‘under a PAR approach’ should be ‘through’

Page 1, line 7: ‘become’ should be ‘became’ as it is past tense

Page 2, lines 83-87: This entire paragraph comprises a single sentence which needs to be broken down into at least two sentences.

Page 3, 91-96: A very long sentence here.

Page 4, lines 159-163: A very long and somewhat convoluted sentence.

Page 4, line 177: minor typo – metodology instead of methodology

Everything should be in past tense

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

 

Thank you very much for your contributions, which have undoubtedly improved the article.

According to your suggestions we have made the following changes (in red in the text):

 

-We have expanded the bibliographical references in the theoretical framework, enriching the article with the suggestions of new authors that you have you pointed out.

-We have clarified the role of children within this participatory research and discussed some issues with the help of the suggested authors (references).

-We have clarified the use of data collection and documentation techniques.

-We have made explicit some ethical issues arising from the role of children in this participatory research.

-We have clarified the meaning of space and territory.

-We have improved the wording of the article.

-The wording of the text is in the past tense

- We have expanded on the strengths and weaknesses of the research in the final section.

 

To be honest, we are not completely satisfied with the review of the article. You raise some issues that we have not been able to address in depth in the space and time we had to review the article. Nevertheless, we hope that you will consider the article for publication.

 

Thank you very much for your comments.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have sufficiently improved the manuscript based on recommendations.

The research question is now clearly stated, as are the various methods used in the study.

It’s good that the opportunities and limitations regarding involving children as research participants have been explicitly addressed.

However, the analysis in the study remains unclear. How have the authors arrived at the results from the different methods? A more explicit analysis would enhance the study’s transparency and quality.

Overall, the manuscript now has better scientific quality, but I recommend further revision to make the analysis more transparent.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer: 
We very much appreciate the assessment you have made of our work and the improvements you feel have occurred in the last submission. Your input and suggestions have been of great help in this regard. In this new version, in response to your comments, we have described how the data analysis has been performed to make this process more transparent. 
We hope that the incorporated text responds adequately to your request. 
Thank you for your attention.
Best regards, 
The Authors