Multi-dimensional lens to article 12 of the UNCRC: a model to enhance children’s participation

ABSTRACT

Children’s participation has significantly increased in the last three decades; however, participation rights, as outlined in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, are often undermined by a range of dominant identities and traditional social constructions. As children’s participation processes are immersed in complex environments and multifaceted social identities, this article examines the experiences of marginalised children in Brazil and explores how identities enable or restrict their opportunities to realise their participation rights. By discussing the intersection between identities and inequalities, the paper revisits a model for child participation proposed by Laura Lundy and offers an expanded typology that includes three dimensions: ‘intersecting identities’, ‘enabling environments’ and ‘dimension factors’. In doing so, the revised model seeks to address complex forms of exclusion and marginalisation which result from a range of intersecting social categories.

KEYWORDS:

• Children and young people's participation
• children's rights
• social identities
• inequality
• inclusion

Introduction

Over time, and across societies and cultures, children¹ have experienced differences and inequalities as a result of a combination of multiple identities, vulnerabilities, and society’s interpretations of their assigned roles and social standings (e.g. Holloway 2014; Mayall 2000; Punch 2003; Rodó-de-Zárate 2017; Skelton 2008; Tisdall 2017; Van Blerk 2013; Cuevas-Parra 2021a). Of specific interest to this article, children’s social identities have been often overlooked whilst discussing their right to participation, outlined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). This has implications on the engagement of children in collective actions, which is often impeded as a result of social structures that prevent children from accessing equitable opportunities to participate in decision-making (Evans and Holt 2011; Shier 2017).

In order to address the gaps between children’s participation and children’s social identities, a revised model for enhancing child participation rights is proposed. This adapts Lundy's model by suggesting an expanded typology that includes three dimensions: ‘intersecting identities’, ‘enabling environments’ and ‘dimension factors’. This proposed model is built on empirical evidence from a research project conducted in Brazil, which studied children’s experiences of their right to participation and explored the extent to which social identities and inequalities are intertwined and tend to reinforce each other. This expanded model uses a lens of analysis that connect identities, inequalities and participation rights, and support the idea that social categories, space and contexts are critical components that highlight the complexity of children’s participation rights (see Figure 1). The model consequently aims to understand complex forms of exclusion and marginalisation that are the result of a range of intersecting categories, including race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, gender and sexual identities. By including these additional dimensions, this new typology does not aim to replace Lundy’s model; instead, it intends to cover features which are not integrated in the original model and seeks to provide tools for exploring and dealing with intricate components of participatory processes.

Figure 1. ‘Multi-dimensional lens to Article 12’ model.

Unpacking children’s participation rights through typologies

Children’s right to participation is a substantive legal entitlement and a core principle of the UNCRC, which has contributed to a deeper cultural shift in the ways in which society position children in decision-making processes (Archard 2004; Verhellen 2015; Tisdall 2021). Article 12(1) of the UNCRC frames this right as follows:

States Parties shall assure to the child who is capable of forming his or her own views the right to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child, the views of the child being given due weight in accordance with the age and maturity of the child. (UNCRC, Article 12)

However, since Article 12 outlines a right but does not provide a definition of children’s participation, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child offers a definition to help unpack and operationalise this right in General Comment No. 12. Specifically, the General Comment states that participation is an:

… ongoing process, which includes information-sharing and dialogue between children and adults based on mutual respect, and in which children can learn how their views and those of adults are taken into account and shape the outcome of such processes. (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child 2009:para.3)

This definition embraces the notion of children’s participation as a process as well as an outcome with three pivotal components: an impact on decision-making, a mutual respect between children and adults, and a joint learning process. As Article 12 and General Comment No. 12 are both foundational components and abstract constructions of children’s participation, there is a need to unwrap and put this concept into practice through typologies to assist decision-makers and practitioners in understanding how children’s participation is translated from global policy obligations to implementation.

In children’s participation literature, one of the first models to explore his concept was Hart’s ladder of participation which is built on eight rungs that describe different participation levels, ranging from low to high quality, from manipulation to child-initiated decision-making that is shared with adults (Hart 1992). Years later, Shier (2001) developed a conceptual typology called ‘Pathways to Participation’. This typology aimed to resolve tensions around social control as opposed to empowerment, considered process versus impact, and problematised key features impeding children’s participation, such as adult domination, understandings of childhood based on dependency, and lack of accountability and follow-up. Contemporaneously, Johnson (2011) developed the Change-Scape model that focuses on contexts and the impact these have on the effectiveness of children’s participation, connecting contextual factors to external drivers (political economy and culture) and internal processes (policies, capacity and confidence).

Lundy model

One of the most prominent child participation models, central to this article, was proposed by Lundy (2007). Lundy’s model uses a policy analysis of children’s rights to participate and focuses on four interrelated elements of Article 12’s provisions: ‘space’, ‘voice’, ‘audience’ and ‘influence’. In this model, ‘space’ refers to giving children the opportunity to express a view, ‘voice’ means facilitating them to express their views, ‘audience’ reflects the obligation to listen to children’s views, and ‘influence’ requires that these views must be acted upon appropriately (Lundy 2007, 933). The Lundy model aims to understand how the children’s participation processes can be operationalised in light of the legal standards set forth in the UNCRC. It emphasises that there are two interrelated dimensions to participation: adults engaging with children within a participatory process (‘space’ and ‘voice’) and adults in positions of power taking into account children’s views (‘audience’ and ‘influence’).

Lundy’s model is particularly useful for analysing the different degrees of participation that can take place in relation to meaningful spaces, negotiation of power, decision-making and shared responsibilities. However, Lundy’s model, and the other models discussed earlier, do not fully capture the complexities of children’s social identities, relationships and diversity of childhoods. Tisdall (2015b) reflects on this complexity:

Thus, participation models are growing more complex, with wider recognition of institutional, social, political, cultural, and economic influences and the mechanisms to increase children’s involvement. Such models, however, still largely set up a dichotomy between children and adults and thus ignore the diversity of individuals and relationships. (Tisdall 2015b, 188)

The operationalisation of the Lundy’s model has been pivotal in providing tools to increase opportunities and practices for children to participate, which has been celebrated and acknowledged. However, the model nonetheless offers a limited understanding of children’s socio-spatial experiences in a diverse range of contexts that determine the meaning and significance of children’s participation in their everyday lives (see also Holloway 2014; Ansell et al. 2012; Evans and Holt 2011). In same line of thought, Van Blerk (2019) highlights the importance of spatial and relational contexts for comprehending the ways in which space, place, scale and mobility are intertwined. This exemplifies the need for a lens of analysis which identifies discriminatory and exclusionary practices that silence children; for instance, how different representations of childhood within the same community could have an impact on children’s option to participate, be excluded or be imposed upon.

Complexity of childhoods

The understanding of childhood as a social construction embraces a notion of a plurality of childhoods that co-exist and intersect with each other as they are relationally produced (Prout 2011). This implies that models need to be adapted and contextualised according to specific time and space, and that the intersection between social identities, such as gender, race and ethnicity, are built locally (see Van Blerk 2019; Kustatscher 2017). Equally, Spyrou (2018) highlights that understandings of childhood are socially and relationally produced, and are the result of social relations at a given time, space and place. For instance, Lewis (2012) argues that restrictions on girls’ mobility in north Lebanon, in contrast to the freedom given to boys, affects girls’ ability to participate in social activities with their peers. Similarly, in Scotland, Konstantoni and Emejulu (2017) observe that interactions amongst children from different racial backgrounds are linked to their identities based on their ethnicities, religions and cultural values, with these identities influencing their relationships, the level of group inclusion and exclusion, and their chances to participate with their peers. In another example, Spyrou (2011) assets that the relationship which Greek-Cypriot and Turkish-Cypriot children have with the space and culture where they live is relational and context-based, in which constructions of national identity, language and tradition are significant factors that determine the exclusion and marginalisation of one ethnic group over the other.

These examples provide evidence that the complexities of children as a social category requires the use of different lenses to understand how their participation in society is affected by power differentials, social identities and inequalities (see also Cornwall 2008; Holloway 2014; Cuevas-Parra 2020; Hanson et al. 2018). Influenced by Crenshaw (1991), who coined the concept of intersectionality as part of black feminist theory, Konstantoni and Emejulu (2017) argue that the field of children’s participation should contribute to discussions on intersectionality by emphasising the importance of including an examination of children’s intersecting identities, inequalities and opportunities to engage in social life. They write:

Through a framework of intersectional childhoods, we can put age in an embodied and relational context with other categories of difference. In so doing, it becomes possible to spotlight the particular dynamics of race, age, gender, sexuality, class and disability that shape the ways in which children think about themselves and how they encounter their social worlds. (Konstantoni and Emejulu 2017, 17)

Thus, it is critical to have models that acknowledge and address the dominant influence that social identities and contexts have on children, and their opportunities to participate and to change structures of inequalities. Still, current models focusing on child participation do not interrogate the detailed social categories that shape the way in which children’s participation is constructed, such as gender, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, sexuality, disabilities and religion. This reveals the need for dialogue around children’s participation and intersecting children’s social identities, with a focus on how these categories have an impact on children’s lives, can lead to exacerbated inequalities and have major repercussions on children’s social life, including access to education, recreational activities and free time (e.g. Davis 2008; Ecklund 2012; Ravnbøl 2009; Thorne 2004). More recently, a shared position amongst scholars considers that identities and contexts are critical components for exploring the complexity of children’s participation rights, and, when taken as a whole, these identities can make children vulnerable and unable to participate and engage with their peers on an equitable basis (Alanen 2016; Evans and Holt 2011; Kustatscher 2017; Shier 2017; Konstantoni and Emejulu 2017; Hanson 2016). Hence, the analysis of these dimensions is pivotal for developing and implementing children’s participation models that ensure an equitable realisation of the right to participate.

Methodology

This article draws on a research project undertaken in 2019 and 2020 that aims to explore children’s participation experiences and discusses children’s perceptions of how identity categories (including gender, age, race, ethnicity and poverty, amongst others) are pivotal in determining their opportunities to participate in social life. The research questions are: (a) What are the social identities that enable or restrict opportunities for children to realise their participation rights? (b) How can child participation models address issues of exclusion and marginalisation based on children’s social categories?

This project aligns with a qualitative research paradigm and adopts two methods for data collection: semi-structured interviews and focus groups. The choice of a qualitative approach was made to facilitate a data collection process that is useful to support the inclusion of children’s views, and allows multifaceted description and interpretation of the issues being explored (Marshall and Rossman 2006).

Research’s participants included 39 children (21 girls and 18 boys, according to their self-reported gender), ages 12–17 years, who were members of the Young Public Policy Monitoring (MJPOP) in northeast Brazil. The recruitment of research participants was an opt-in method advertised by the MJPOP and took into consideration participants’ characteristics, such as age, gender, ethnicity and socioeconomic status, in order to ensure a diversity of views.

To obtain detailed narrative data, participants were interviewed either in groups or individually, and were free to choose the method in which they wanted to participate. Of the 39 participants, 31 opted to be interviewed in focus groups, whilst eight chose to be interviewed individually. In order to ensure that all participants felt confident expressing their ideas fully in their own language, a professional interpreter was provided to ensure participants and the author, who acted as lead researcher, had a meaningful dialogue (Squires 2009). The data generated from the focus groups and interviews was examined using thematic analysis, a procedure that examines and records themes or patterns associated with a phenomenon and specific research questions (Guest, MacQueen, and Namey 2012). This type of analysis was selected as a flexible technique that enables the identification and categorisation of emerging themes from data to gain a richer understanding of specific phenomena under study (Vaismoradi, Turunen, and Bondas 2013).

Ethical considerations were a fundamental component of this study, which received approval from Moray House School of Education and Sport’s Ethic Committee at the University of Edinburgh. This project followed key steps to ensure safe and ethical involvement of children, including informed consent, voluntarily engagement, the right opt out at any time, and mitigating strategies to respond to any risk or potential harm (e.g. Alderson and Morrow 2004; Houghton 2015; Kustatscher 2014; Powell, Graham, and Truscott 2016). All the identifiers were removed, and participants’ names were anonymised and replaced by pseudonyms.

Setting the research context

In Brazil, fifty per cent of children live in poverty and experience multiple adversities in terms of inequality, exclusion and limited social mobility based on their ethnicity, race and socioeconomic status (Rizzini 2011). Most of these children lives in shanty towns called favelas, and are often subject to violence, isolation, discrimination, police abuse and marginalisation (Da Silva and Dos Santos 2015). Within the favelas there is a considerable percentage of persons of afro-descent and poor children who are more susceptible to social exclusion due to the high prevalence of discrimination on the basis of skin colour, race ethnicity and socioeconomic status (Marteleto and Dondero 2016).

Despite segregation and stigmatisation, a group of black and poor child members of the Young People Monitoring Public Policy – MJPOP as per its acronym in Portuguese – came together to mobilise themselves to challenge practices and attitudes that perpetuate inequalities in their communities (Rodrigues 2018). The MJPOP was established to engage children in seeking solutions for systemic problems in favelas by supporting them to learn about and debate how best to effect change to improve their well-being. This is considered a movement that aims to open up spaces for children to engage in social accountability mechanisms and participate in public policy debates.

Results and discussion

During the focus groups, child participants engaged in a collective exercise to determine the enabling and restricting factors affecting their paths towards achieving their right to participate, as outlined in Article 12 of the UNCRC. The participants highlighted that the main restricting features that led to lower participation levels for them and their peers, in order of magnitude, were race (i.e. indigenous or black ethnicity), sexual orientation (i.e. lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI)), socioeconomic status (i.e. lower socioeconomic status), gender (i.e. females in a patriarchal society) and disability (i.e. vision impairment or mental health conditions).

Participants reported that the biggest negative impact on children in their community was being black as this group faces the most discrimination. They ranked being LGBTI second because they perceived that people who identify this way are rejected by Brazilian society. In terms of gender as a constraining category, children differed in their opinions; those who identified as boys minimised this issue whilst those who identified as girls pointed out that gender was a major concern for them. They, however, agreed that the combination of combination of the aforementioned categories created extremely negative consequences for children. For instance, they thought that being black, LGBTI and poor was the worst thing that could happen to children, whether male or female, as children with these combined restricting features formed the most excluded group. One participant summarised this view, held by the majority of participants:

For me, there is a difference in the way girls, boys, gays, straight, blacks and whites are treated. In my case, I have less opportunities because I am girl, I am black, I am poor, and I am from the periphery. But the thing that affects me the most is my skin colour. (Marcia, age 13)

This account reflects a common perception amongst participants that shows they felt excluded based on their social marginalising categories. In turning the discussion towards the enabling approaches and environments that support their participatory rights, children concurred that the main aspects were a) having safe and inclusive spaces, b) adult support, c) time and resources for their activities, d) long-term rather short-term initiatives, and e) open communication with the organisations that supported them. One participant pointed out that despite the fact he was constantly mocked, harassed and excluded from school activities for being poor and black – which was a typical feeling amongst participants – he found the MJPOP group to be a space where he was able to participate and thrive in multiple activities. He reflected:

[Discrimination] has a negative impact on my personality. But I learnt to feel empowered and powerful. I have changed, and I have more resources to fight and face discrimination and prejudices … I think, due to the support that I have [in the organisation], the love, and company we have, we are all united and love each other. I feel valued. (Gustavo, age 14)

These findings suggest the necessity to focus on two critical themes that arose from conversations with the research participants. One, the need for a revised model for implementing Article 12 that includes the centrality and importance of children’s social intersecting identities and experiences. Two, the importance of analysing the key enabling environments that provide children with a safe, ethical and meaningful space to participate. These themes are discussed below.

A revised model for implementing Article 12

Participants’ reflections demonstrate the need to include a greater focus on the multiple social identities and contributing environments affecting children’s opportunities for participation in order to ensure that the participation dimensions outlined in Lundy’s model are conducive to achieving a transformative engagement with children. This finding echoes Percy-Smith (2011), who argues that creating spaces for children to participate is the first step towards ensuring their right to be heard, although this requires being connected to their contexts, personal experiences and social factors that engender inequalities and exclusion, such as age-based power issues, disabilities and language, amongst others.

Drawing on discussions with child participants in this research, I am proposing that an effective and meaningful implementation of ‘space’, ‘voice’, ‘audience’ and ‘influence’, as outlined in Lundy’s model, needs to be informed by two prerequisites, delineated as ‘intersecting identities’ and ‘enabling environments’. These components are organised into a circular model that recognises the importance of all constituents and represents a systematic approach to articulating the critical conditions to ensure children’s participation is meaningful. This multifaceted model is represented in Figure 1.

This model intends to cover new dimensions which are not integrated in Lundy’s existing model and provide tools for understanding, assessing and addressing the complexities and challenges of implementing children’s right to participate. Furthermore, this model also seeks to address recurrent challenges to children’s participation. Tisdall (2015a) summarises these as tokenism, lack of feedback, the inclusion/exclusion dichotomy, consultation but not dialogue, adult processes and structures that exclude children, and lack of sustainability. With these in mind, some of the ‘intersecting identities’ are defined as gender, race, ethnicity, age, socioeconomic status, language, sexuality and abilities, amongst others. ‘Enabling environments’ are understood as competencies, methodologies, social contexts, inclusion strategies, accountability, safeguarding and sustainability. As in Lundy’s model, these elements are connected and influence each other, and there is no hierarchy as the factors blend into one another.

The foundational components of this model are the four dimension factors at the heart of Lundy’s model: ‘voice’, ‘space’, ‘audience’ and ‘influence’. By recognising the centrality of these factors in realising children’s right to participation, it is pivotal to also highlight the importance of ‘intersecting identities’ and ‘enabling environments’ as prerequisites for having a ‘voice’ and ‘space’ to express a view, and being able to reach an ‘audience’ to listen to that view and ‘influence’ their viewpoints. Data from this study demonstrate that ‘voice’ is not enough when children’s opportunities to express a view are determined by inequalities grounded in their social identities. For instance, participants highlighted that it is critical that children’s ‘voices’ are inclusive of gender, ethnicity, race, socioeconomic status, amongst other categories. Likewise, ‘spaces’ are not always accessible for children from minority groups or vulnerable groups; indeed, many children can be left behind if these ‘spaces’ are not critically analysed using an intersecting identities lens. Furthermore, ‘audience’ and ‘influence’ are determined by the way in which children interact with others – whether children or adults – and the extent to which their perspectives are taken into account. However, these relations are often informed by structural inequalities and social cultural norms that limit children’s opportunities to be listened to and have their views taken seriously.

Thus, this new mode argues that the ‘dimension factors’ suggested by Lundy (i.e. ‘voice’, ‘space’, ‘audience’ and ‘influence’) need to be analysed conjunction with two additional dimensions: children’s ‘intersecting identities’ and ‘enabling environments’. For instance, a community-based project that aims to enhance the participation of children in local decision-making requires adequate methodologies and competent facilitators (‘enabling environments’). Then, it is necessary to develop an inclusion strategy to reach out to a diverse range of children without discrimination on any grounds, ensuring that, for instance, gender, ethnicity and disability (‘intersecting identities’) do not deter children from making their own choice over whether to participate or not.

Notwithstanding that this model has been developed from research conducted in Brazil, the framework can be used broadly, as it embraces a flexible vision designed to evolve and adapt to meet the needs of children in multiple contexts. For instance, in Brazil, children perceived experiences of race and ethnicity to be especially significant when considering opportunities for participation, whilst a study in Lebanon found that children there considered religion and gender to be key factors facilitating or impeding their ability to participate in social life (for further discussion, see Lewis 2012). Thus, utilisation of the proposed model can result in enhanced spaces and opportunities for children to participate in society in an equitable and inclusive manner.

Additional dimension one: intersecting identities

Interviews with the participants in this study suggest that a conceptual framework for children’s participation needs to include an analysis of how social identities interact with spaces and opportunities to participate and how the combination of these identities determines power relations, treatments, privileges and individuals’ vulnerabilities (for further discussion see also Alanen 2016; Konstantoni and Emejulu 2017). However, it is important to note that each identity’s impact varies across countries, cultures and spaces.

In considering ‘race and ethnicity’ in the context of children’s participation, participants from the Brazil study concurred that race and ethnicity as critical categories that determined their right to participate in decision-making. In the context of Brazil, they said that being white, black or from indigenous minorities is not merely a matter of appearance but leads to unequal opportunities to express their views and participate in activities, and ultimately determines their interpersonal relationships. One participant explained this is based on the country’s history of slavery that associates certain people with power and privilege:

They [the slaves] were sold as objects, and when purchased, forced to work without pay, suffering physical punishment and exhausting hours. Many years have passed, but slavery has left a legacy in the country. Racism accompanies black people from their birth, until the moment of their death. (Juliana, age 17)

This account was endorsed by most of the participants who collectively agreed that physical features determined by race and ethnicity had enormous implications on social relationships and children’s opportunities to join their peers on an equal basis.

Race and ethnicity was therefore central to the identities of participants and their sense of oppression and disadvantage. The child participants reported that within a mixed population, those children who have lighter skin feel superior and exclude those with darker features. The participants said that one of the most common ways to exclude someone was based on African hairstyles. Joao, age 14, explained, ‘the issue of hair is a major issue of discrimination. The more Afro look a person has, the more discrimination they face.’ Participants also highlighted that due to these discriminatory practices, many children have decided to grow their hair in the African-style as a form of contestation and liberation to recover their cultural roots and value their identities. They also said that despite challenges, especially at school, there were places –like their children’s association- where their racial features were not a limitation and they could participate freely.

Aside from race and ethnicity, participants agreed that gender was strongly connected with power relationships within patriarchal systems, where girls and boys were treated unequally and decisions about their lives were determined by their gender and associated cultural roles (for similar findings, see also Gutierrez and Hopkins 2015; Konstantoni 2012; Kustatscher 2017). It is worth noting that children discussed this topic in terms of boys and girls; hence, they presented gender as a binary. Participants articulated that their gender affected their opportunities to engage in activities and interactions with peers and adults, and, in many cases, they perceived that gender-assigned roles were the path to discriminatory and exclusionary attitudes and practices. One girl reflected a view held by the majority of female participants:

As girls, we suffer from machismo and discrimination, and we face inequality issues. The problem is that the boys in this group don’t see that [inequality]; they don’t suffer anything from machismo, so they don’t realise the problems that girls suffer. Being a black and poor girl is very hard. (Cleo, age 14)

Cleo’s account reveals that gender is perceived to be highly significant in most relationships amongst children. Furthermore, participants were aware of the unequal interactions based on their gender identities and gendered stereotypes. They pointed out that this determined the way they were treated and the extent to which people listened to them. This idea was reinforced by another participant:

Many girls are totally damaged inside their minds. They don’t have self-confidence because every day of their lives they have been discriminated against by others for their [skin] colour or for being poor. Being [a] black and poor girl is one of the worst things that can happen to someone. (Marcia, age 13)

As Marcia highlighted, the dominant gender stereotypes cause severe limitations in girls’ lives, but this is not the only lens that needs to be used to analyse power and inequality. For instance, when gender intersects with race, socioeconomic status or other social categories, girls become more disadvantaged and have less opportunities to thrive. Francisca, age 13, reported, ‘At school, I felt discriminated against because I want to play football. But because I am a girl, the boys and adults think I shouldn’t play football because this is not a sport for girls.’

In the Brazil study, discussed in this article, participants strongly suggested that opportunities to participate were also framed by socioeconomic status, which played a pivotal role in determining privileges or restrictions when realising their right to participate. Children were aware of socioeconomic status segregation as they had experienced multiple levels of exclusion due to their socioeconomic status. Maria, age 12, said, ‘I have been discriminated against due to social class. My family is poor, and at school my friends make fun of me.’ Similar accounts were captured in all the focus groups and interviews. The tendency was to recognise poverty – equated with a lower class group – as one of the major limitations to participating equally at school due to the discriminatory attitudes amongst children and adults.

With regards to other social identities, the participants were particularly preoccupied with the high level of exclusion, violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation. They complained that many adults and children do not even realise that sexual orientation, as a social identity, significantly restricts the right to participate and be protected from abuse, adding that this topic is not openly discussed or addressed as it is considered taboo. Children were aware of the discriminatory attitudes in their communities that push children to hide their sexual identities in order to be accepted. Children shared that as part of their children’s association, they conducted a peer-to-peer research project to explore this issue. Adriana, age 15, provided this reflection:

LGBTI phobia is very present in the place where we are [living]; gay people and lesbians are very judged, suffer violence from their family and society, and the religions condemn them a lot. I see this every day, and I can say that LGBTI life in the streets and school is very hard. In our research, we speak of the permanent feeling of fear they feel. I myself see how the LGBTI are discriminated against and isolated. This is inequality. (Adriana, age 15)

Participants explained that part of the problem is the intolerance to different identities that are considered unacceptable in mainstream society, but also a lack of awareness about children’s sexuality. This is reflected in the absence of policies or programmes to tackle this issue and provide a safety network. Nonetheless, they acknowledged that in their children’s association there is a space for everyone and no one is discriminated against on any ground, but they lamented that this was the exception within their community when it should be the norm.

Other social identities identified as critical to consider in collective participation were language, different abilities and religion. Children found that the ability to communicate and understand adults was an obstacle as well as lack of knowledge of other languages when interacting with peers from other countries. The children also highlighted the gap between adults’ and children’s language skills. Ana, age 13, said, ‘I believe that the major barrier in children’s participation is language, the way people speak. Children don’t understand how some adults speak because they are complicated.’

Participants also mentioned that children with disabilities have less space to participate because people are not prepared to deal with them due to stigma and segregation. When asked why there were not children with different abilities in their children’s association, they responded that they assumed that they did not want to come, but now they questioned this rationale. They said that the children with different abilities probably perceived that their children’s group was not inclusive to their needs. Article 2 of the UNCRC on non-discrimination establishes that all children are entitled to realise their rights without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of children’s ability or disability. Nonetheless, children with disabilities continue to experience multiple barriers to participation in daily activities due to several factors, such as personal functioning (e.g. physical or psychological functioning), social exclusion (e.g. not being accepted in social groups) and lack of resources (e.g. not having money for transportation) (Huus et al. 2021). Equally, Pak and Parsons (2020) advocate for reconceptualising inclusion and differentiation as strategies to ensure children with disabilities are able to engage in an equitable basis, but with differentiated methodologies that enable them to benefit from their participation and interaction with other children.

Along the same lines, inclusion of children from different religions was a sensitive issue amongst child participants in the Brazil study. This is due to the dominant position of some religions over others, resulting in complex relationships between religious communities. Participants identified that members of Afro-Brazilian religions, such as Candomblé², were discriminated against and excluded based on their beliefs. This echoes studies which show that tension between religions is an unresolved issue in many societies, limiting children’s ability to participate with their peers from different religions (see also Friedman 2019; Garred 2013).

In summary, this section demonstrates that the ‘dimension factors’ from Lundy’s model (‘voice’, ‘space’, ‘audience’ and ‘influence’) need to be applied in conjunction with an additional dimension focusing on the ‘intersecting identities’. This will ensure that the normative ideals of Article 12 are built into inclusive spaces that understand and address ‘intersecting identities’ and inequalities. By bringing children’s social identities into the model, equitable choices for children to participate are widened and everyone, hopefully, will be treated fairly and provided with provisions to ensure their inclusion.

Additional dimension two: enabling environments

In responding to Tisdall’s (2015b) criticism of the consistent limiting factors that undermine children’s right to participate, this new model proposes a set of ‘enabling environments’ that seek to address these issues. An enabling environment is understood within this model as a space that fosters children’s participation, formed by physical, social and behavioural components and interventions. Each component – competencies, methodologies, social contexts, inclusion strategies, accountability, safeguarding and sustainability – is interrelated and dependent, contributing to the enhancement of the right to participate across Lundy’s four dimensions.

The recognition of children’s competencies is an essential step towards ensuring meaningful spaces for children’s collective participation. This model uses the definition provided by James and James (2012, 34), who outline competence as, ‘the ability, capacity or qualification to perform a task, fulfil a function or to meet the requirements of a role to an acceptable standard’. This definition does not use competence in relation to age, knowledge or maturity, but is based on a person’s abilities. In the same line of thought, Le Borgne and Tisdall (2017, 123) argue that, ‘competency is more than knowledge and skills; it is the ability and ac­tuality of applying knowledge and skills successfully’. Participants in the Brazil study complained that their views were not always recognised as valid. Gustavo, age 14, noted, ‘I am a young person; they [the adults] only listen to the adults.’

Responses from children advocated for the development of adequate methodologies tailored to fit their requirements and circumstances. Interestingly, they did not mention the concept of ‘child-friendly methodologies’, which seems to be more researcher-centered language referring to children’s ability to understand methodologies. For children, these are all just methodologies. Furthermore, they added that their social contexts are critical to determining methodologies, but also have an impact on their opportunities to engage collectively. Hence, when social contexts are overlooked or homogenised, there is a risk of obscuring vital factors that are critical to comprehending how children’s participation is understood within a specific setting (see also Ansell 2004; Holloway 2014; Mayall 2000; Percy-Smith 2010; Punch 2003; Van Blerk 2011; Cuevas-Parra 2021b). Whilst discussing social contexts, participants pointed out the many times that children are excluded due to adverse environments; thus, they valued having an inclusion strategy at the programme level, from scope to delivery, which ensures that children have equitable opportunities to participate. As participation is relational and situational, each strategy requires the exploration, identification and meaningful inclusion of those who are often excluded or marginalised. An inclusion strategy should go further than understanding the intersection between social identities and inequalities but should also address or mitigate those factors.

One of the major criticisms of children’s participation is lack of accountability, in which children are not provided with feedback and are unaware of how their ideas or recommendations are used (Tisdall 2015b). In the context of this article, accountability to children is understood as the communication process between children and adults or institutions where they are able to request input on their contributions and to raise their concerns (Newlands 2014). Tisdall (2021) argues that when children’s participation is taken seriously, there are institutional processes in place to let them know how their views are weighed and implemented. However, sometimes accountability processes are absent; in other cases, they are timely but superficial, and some are meaningful but untimely.

Children signalled that safeguarding is an essential component to ensure that their involvement in activities is not a threat to their safety. Adriana, age 15, reflected that when ‘children feel free and safe, they are very active’. Participants mentioned, for instance, that they had found an important space in their local project where they were free and safe to express their views without fear. Marcia, age 13, highlighted that this sense of protection, nurturing and defence was a critical factor underpinning her engagement in the weekly activities. She said, ‘I stopped thinking negative things. I am now more empowered, and I participate in many things, despite the discrimination and bullying. I overcame the fear I had my whole life.’ Participants mentioned that this protective environment was also an important factor influencing their parents’ willingness to allow them to become members of the association.

In conversations with the participants, it was evident that the children were aware of the lack of sustainability of their project due to annual funding cycles. The participants recommended having long-term plans, as one of the enabling factors, to ensure that organisations or children themselves can develop a strategic plan for the long-term operation of their activities.

This section shows that the ‘dimension factors’ from Lundy’s model – ‘voice’, ‘space’, ‘audience’ and ‘influence’ – are strengthened if implemented concurrently with two additional dimensions: ‘enabling environments’ and the previously discussed ‘intersecting identities’. Each feature – competencies, methodologies, social contexts, inclusion strategies, accountability, safeguarding and sustainability – are critical considerations for ensuring quality, safety and long-term impact. Adding these dimensions to ‘voice’ and ‘space’ from the children’s side and ‘audience’ and ‘influence’ from the adults’ side can ensure that children’s participation is reconceptualised, thus enhancing the chance that children will be able to express a view, be listened to and have their views taken into account.

Conclusion

Despite the nearly universal ratification of the UNCRC, the right to participate continues to face consistent challenges and its implementation has been often ambiguous with a sense of not always being meaningful, inclusive or binding. Furthermore, the right to participation outlined in Article 12 intersects with the complexities of children’s lives, which are not universal, despite being framed as such in the UNCRC. Human rights entitlements are universal, as everyone possesses the same rights; however, this principle is harder to implement in practice, given the intricacies of implementing a universal right across multiple understandings of childhood. This implies the need to use a model that considers children’s multiple identities, diversity of experiences and the inequalities associated with their lives.

Lundy (2007) has provided a model which establishes that child participation cannot be defined purely in terms of children having a ‘voice’; thus, partaking in social life also requires the existence of meaningful ‘space’, the presence of an ‘audience’ to listen to what children have to say, and mechanisms to ‘influence’ decision-making. Drawing on empirical research, this article discusses that without critically assessing ‘intersecting identities’ and ‘enabling environments’, it is challenging to ensure an equitable interaction process between children themselves and children with adults. The promise of a non-discriminatory and fair dialogue and engagement to impact decision-making cannot be achieved without bringing social identities and contexts into the picture. The more we can comprehend how ‘voice’, ‘space’, ‘audience’ and ‘influence’ are informed by relations of power and inequalities based, for instance, on children’s social categories, the deeper understanding we can develop of relational and contextual components of children’s participation. Lundy’s dimensions of ‘space’ and ‘voice’ need to take into account children’s identities and how these enable children to, or deter children from, engaging equally in relation to others.

To address this tension, the model outlined in this article shows that the right to participate is not context-free and when identities intersect with inequalities, this right is more challenging to realise. Hence, cultures, values and traditional beliefs cannot be underestimated as they can, and do, limit children’s participation. This article highlights that this lens of analysis is not always present in existing participation typologies. Furthermore, data from the Brazil study demonstrates that the child participants immediately recognised that their social identities were intrinsically related to their privileges or disadvantages, and these, as a whole, determined their opportunities to participate equally. I, therefore, argue that the examination of ‘intersecting identities’ alone cannot address children’s participation challenges; it is necessary to also look at the ‘enabling environments’ discussed in this article. These two lenses of analysis together can ensure that Lundy’s four interrelated dimension factors – ‘space’, ‘voice’, ‘audience’, and ‘influence’ – can be implemented in such a manner that leads to transformative participation. As stated, the model proposed in this article does not aim to replace Lundy’s model but seeks to conceptualise the distinct factors that can address the complexities of participatory processes. This model can be adapted across countries and cultures, according to the relevant identities and contexts, and can be used to develop and evaluate participatory projects, and to improve understandings about how contexts, identities and inequalities determine the opportunities and spaces for children to participate equitably.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank the generous contributions of children and young people and adults professionals from Brazil involved in the project. Many thanks to the anonymous reviewers for discussions related to ideas within this article and the broader childhood studies discourse.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 This article uses the definition set forth by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) of a ‘child’ which they have broadly defined as ‘a person below the age of 18’.

2 Candomblé is a contemporary Afro-Brazilian syncretic religion, especially practiced in the state of Bahia. Practitioners believe that every person can controls his or her destiny and acts as a protector.