Over the past 30 years, increasing attention has been directed towards children’s rights in educational research. However, despite the increasing volume of research, there has been some criticism of the scope of issues covered (Quennerstedt, 2013), and extent of theorisation (Cordero Arce, 2015; Hanson & Peleg, 2020).

While some analysts argue that child rights research is absent of theory or under theorised (Reynaert et al, 2009; Quennerstedt, 2011; 2013), others maintain that child rights theorisation is “not scarce, but rather abundant” occurring “implicitly and explicitly” in research (Hanson & Peleg, 2020, p. 16). The paradox that suggests the field can be both deficient and abundant in theorisation presents an important question for those working within the field.  A better understanding of what is recognised and accepted as constituting ‘theory’ and ‘theorisation’, and how this is used in the research, is needed.  

Poretti (2018) notes that the interest in children’s rights theorisation is a relatively recent phenomenon. Instead, critical debates within the field tend to centre on child rights “believers” and “opponents” (p. 111), and whether children even really have rights (Cordero Arce, 2015). Hanson and Peleg (2020, p. 31) appear less concerned with the need for specific child rights theorisation, instead problematising the adequacy of current theories as, “theories in the field of children’s rights can very well be borrowed or adapted from elsewhere.” Adding to this complexity in considering theorisation is what Quennerstedt (2013) and Cordero Arce (2015) question in terms of whether the Convention on the Rights of the Child itself has taken the place of theory in child rights research.

The field has indeed been described as an area that emphasises examination of the implementation of children’s rights in concrete practice over critical exploration of the Convention or the foundational principles underpinning child rights research (Cordero Arce, 2015). The far-reaching support for children as rights holders and of the value of the Convention may instigate a reluctance to approach the width of aspects that arise around rights for children with the same level of criticality and rigorous debate that characterises other related fields with an interest in children and childhoods.

It is also possible that what some view as theory, others do not recognise as such, partly depending on disciplinary or cultural standpoints. While several scholars have engaged with the question of what constitutes theory, there is no consensus on its meaning, despite there being consensus on its importance in social research.

It is against this landscape that the current study is set, as we seek to understand theory use in educational children’s rights research by scholars in Europe and more broadly. In doing so, we aim to contribute to the ongoing international debate relating to whether the research field of child rights is undertheorised, sufficiently theorised, or, whether it even needs specific theorisation at all.

To attain elaborated insights in how theory is used in educational children’s rights research we analysed peer-reviewed publications during the decade 2012-2021 with a strict focus on theorising. A data base search with the terms children’s rights, human rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, CRC, UNCRC in various combinations with education, school, teacher, student, early childhood education, ECE, resulted in 119 texts. These were screened for inclusion or exclusion, the inclusion criteria being: - self-labelling as children’s rights research by explicitly mentioning children’s rights or the Convention on the Rights of the Child. - clearly focussing on circumstances or activities in educational practice or its conditions. The criteria were checked in several steps during analytical readings. 20 publications were excluded for not meeting the inclusion criteria, leaving the final number of publications to undergo analysis at 99. Based on earlier scholarly discussions about theory and theory use in research and two calibration analyses, an analysis chart for coding was developed. After each calibration and ensuing discussions, the coding was developed and the chart refined. Five main questions finally guided the analysis of the included publications: 1. What is positioned as theory? 2. What is the function of the theory? 3. What theorisations and/or named/general theories are visible? 4. To what extent does the theorisation contribute to furthering theorisation in children’s rights? 5. If high contribution – in what sense? For questions 1, 2 and 4, fixed coding alternatives were settled. In the main analysis each publication was read in full and coded separately by two of us. Challenges in the analysis were contemplated and resolved in several meetings during the work. The two analyses of each publication were thereafter brought together into one final coding. Where the analysis diverged, we discussed until agreement was reached. Finally, a deeper analysis was achieved by exploring further each code option for question 1. What is positioned as theory? In this we identified patterns and tendencies, and examined what theories/models/literature/policy are used, in order to find main orientations and themes in the theorising used in educational children’s rights research.

Recognising that there can be no ‘theory free’ studies, preliminary findings show that a review of the literature is what is most often positioned as theory in educational children’s rights research (2/3 of the papers). Theorising on the basis of literature is done in variable ways and with diverse functions. Some reviews build a clear logic through the use of literature, to identify a research problem, challenge common thinking, or interpret data. Others have rather restricted or superficial use of previous works. Similar proportions are found amongst papers using policy, to construct an object of study or code data, and those using general theories (e.g. relating to rights, curriculum, Didaktik, Foucault, Bourdieu, etc), or an established conceptual framework (e.g. Human rights education theorisation; 4As model), to achieve a broader range of functions. Also, a small number of papers (10%) generated their own theory or model. Such diversity in the positioning, the uses and functions of theory can explain empirically the ongoing debates in the field about scarce or plethoric theorisation. Also, given our analysis covers a decade of educational children’s rights scholarly work, it is possible to identify some interesting trends over the years. While the use of policy papers as theory seems to be an invariable trend between 2011 and 2021, borrowing general theories to emancipate thought or elaborate new frameworks for knowledge appears more significantly over the last 5 years. We argue that such findings can open a middle way in these debates, as a means to support researchers in consciously reflecting on the epistemology of their work in educational children’s rights research, hopefully strengthening the theoretical foundations as well as aspirations of the research in the field.

Cordero Arce, M. (2015). Maturing children’s rights theory: from children, with children, of children, International Journal of Children’s Rights, 23, 283-331. Ferguson, L. (2013)., Not merely rights for children but children’s rights: the theory gap and the assumptions of the importance of children’s rights, International Journal of Children’s Rights, 21, 177-208. Hanson, K. & Peleg, N. (2020). Waiting for children’s rights theory, International Journal of Children’s Rights, 28, 15-35. Reynaert, D., Bouverne-De Bie, M., & Vandevelde, S. (2009). A review of children’s rights literature since the adoption of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, Childhood, 16(4), 518-534. Quennerstedt, A. (2010). Children, but not really humans? Critical reflections on the hampering effect of the “3 p’s”, International Journal of Children’s Rights, 18, 619-635. Quennerstedt, A. (2013). Children’s rights research moving into the future – challenges on the way forward, International Journal of Children’s Rights, 233-247. Poretti, M. (2018). Unexpected Allies: Expanding the theoretical toolbox of the children’s rights sociologist. In C. Baraldi and T. Cockburn (Eds.)., Theorising Childhood. Studies in Childhood and Youth. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. (pp. 111-134).