Both Childhood Studies and the New Sociology of Childhood revised the idea of children as passive and dependent individuals and understand them as social actors and active co-constructors of their environment (Honig, 2009) which induced an increasing consideration of children’s agency as “the will and capacity to act and to influence others or the environment” (Deakin Crick et al., 2015). This understanding relates to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC, UN 1989) which recognises children’s participatory rights as well as their right to a voice which is heard, given a space to be expressed, listened to and acted upon (Article 12; Lundy, 2007). Despite the increasing attention for children’s voice and agency, a need for clarification in the theoretical conceptualisation of children’s agency has been identified (Priestley, 2020). 

Childhood and adolescence are concepts that are constructed and shaped by normalising practices, discourses and structures. Thus, children and adolescents are constantly confronted with the demands of a complex social reality as well as societal norms (Corsaro, 2005). Educational institutions have the function to foster young people’s development into agentic, critically thinking and creative citizens for a democratic society and to empower them to develop their capacities as it is emphasised in article 29 of the UNCRC. They are, however, also places of reproducing social inequality (Ballantine & Stuber 2017). 

Thus, this symposium focusses on the questions “How do children and young people who are labelled as not fulfilling societal norms or being in socially disadvantaged positions experience agency? How are they supported or restricted in achieving agency by educational institutions?”. The symposium aims to discuss children’s and young people’s agency in relation to different dimensions of diversity and social inequality from an international perspective, involving perspectives from Scotland, Estonia and Germany. The focus of the papers lies on the following questions:

• How do children and young people experience agency within educational institutions?
• How is children’s and young people’s agency related to different dimensions of diversity/social inequality as well as the ecological conditions of the different countries?
• How do educational institutions and practices support or restrict agency?

The twofold comparative perspective on children’s and young people’s agency does not only involve different national perspectives but as well different dimensions of diversity. Representing an intersectional approach, the three papers address different dimensions of diversity which do not only relate to categories that are currently associated with diversity such as gender, ethnicity or dis/ability, but also focus on the diversity of children’s experiences (e.g. care experiences or experiences with individual assistance at school). Moreover, different age groups are represented which is why both the terms “children” and “young people” are used. All papers represent a methodical approach (qualitative or quantitative) which emphasises the experiences and voices of children and young people recognising them as experts of their own living realities. 

Furthermore, the symposium intends to contribute to a discourse of a theoretical conceptualisation of children’s agency by discussing the theoretical implications of the different research perspectives and using a temporal-relational ecological approach as a theoretical framework to analyse and understand agency (Emirbayer & Mische 1998; Priestley et al. 2015). From this perspective, agency is conceptualised as “a temporal and relational phenomenon” and “an emergent phenomenon of the ecological conditions through which it is enacted” (Biesta et al. 2017, 40). The focus lies on how actors achieve, produce and enact agency within specific environments and under certain ecological conditions. This understanding emphasises agency being a social construct rather than being an individual capacity. Agency is therefore shaped by possibilities and restrictions of the physical and social environment (Priestley, 2020).

Ballantine, J. H., & Hammack, F. M. (2017). The sociology of education: A systematic analysis (8th ed.). New York: Routledge. Biesta, G.; Priestley, M. & Robinson, S. (2017). Talking about education: exploring the significance of teachers’ talk for teacher agency, Journal of Curriculum Studies, 49:1, 38-54. Corsaro, W. A. (2005). The sociology of childhood. London: Pine Forge Press. Deakin Crick, R., Huang, S., Shafi, A. A. & Goldspink, C. (2015) Developing resilient agency in learning: the internal structure of learning power, British Journal of Educational Studies, 63:2, 121-160. Emirbayer, M. & Mische, A. (1998) What is agency? American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 962-1023. Honig, M.-S. (2009). How is the Child Constituted in Childhood Studies. In: Qvortrup, J.; Corsaro, W. A. & Honig, M.-S. (Ed.): The Palgrave Handbook of Childhood Studies. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 62-77. Lundy, L (2007). ‘Voice’ is not enough: conceptualising Article 12 of the United Nations Con-vention on the Rights of the Child. British Educational Research Journal 33 (6), 927-942. Priestley, A. 2020. Care-experienced young people: agency and empowerment. Children and Society 34: 521– 536. Priestley, M., Biesta, G. & Robinson, S. (2015). Teacher Agency. An Ecological Approach. London: Bloomsbury. United Nations (UN) (1989): Convention on the Rights of the Child. https://www.unicef.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/UNCRC_united_nations_convention_on_the_rights_of_the_child.pdf