"If You Don't Have Wellbeing, You're Dead": How Children Define and Deconstruct the Notion of Wellbeing
Author(s):
Jenna K. Swan (presenting / submitting)
Conference:
ECER 2013
Network:
25. Research on Children's Rights in Education
Format:
Paper

Session Information

25 SES 01, Children’s Rights, Emotions and Well-Being

Paper Session

Time:
2013-09-10
13:15-14:45
Room:
A-205
Chair:
Vicki Coppock

Contribution

There is an increasing global focus on children’s wellbeing, particularly in policy and provision (Coppock, 2010; Watson, 2010; Watson, Emery and Bayliss, 2012; Federal Interagency Forum on Child and Family Statistics, 2012; Land, 2012; Bradshaw, Hoelscher and Richardson, 2006; UNICEF, 2007). In previous papers, the author has problematised the notion of wellbeing, particularly as it applies to children (Swan & Sargeant, 2010; 2011; 2012). One of the main concerns surrounds the dominance of adult perspectives in reports on children’s wellbeing (Ben-Arieh, 2006). While much has been said about wellbeing, particularly wellbeing for children, there remains limited research that seeks children’s perspectives on these and other complex social issues that affect their lives (Adams, 2012; Fattore, Mason & Watson, 2007). The absence of children’s voices on these matters may be due in part to adults’ varying views on children’s capacity (Lundy, 2007).

In existing research it has been determined that an individual can experience aspects of both positive and negative wellbeing within the more narrow constructs of wellbeing concepts (Diener and Oishi, 2005; Fattore et. al, 2007; Kim-Prieto, Diener, Tamir, Scollon and Diener, 2005; Pollard and Lee, 2003; Weston, 1999). There has been a recent shift in focus in contemporary literature about children’s wellbeing as changing from a negative to a positive focus that increasingly recognises the present situation for children, rather than just preparing for their future (Ben-Arieh, 2006). When it comes to wellbeing for children, what may provide particular insight surrounds how children not only conceptualise wellbeing, but also how they define it.

The highly elusive nature of a definition for wellbeing currently, serves to demonstrate the apparent complexity of wellbeing (Crivello, Camfield & Woodhead, 2009; Dear, Henderson & Korten, 2002; Jones & Sumner, 2009) and provide an opportunity for children’s perspectives to be sought. Informed by the sociology of childhood (James, Jenks & Prout, 1998; James, 2009; Mayall, 2002; Qvortrup, 2009) and Articles 12 and 13 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (United Nations, 1989), this study sought to position children as capable informants on matters that affect their lives. The perspectives of children were sought to aid in presenting children’s communicated ideas surrounding the complex notion of wellbeing and aids in allowing adults to obtain a greater understanding of children’s lives. 

Method

Residing within the interpretive paradigm, this study utilises qualitative techniques through a series of focus group discussions to deconstruct and define the notion of wellbeing. The formal definitions provided by children aged 8 to 12 years from 5 Australian schools are used to highlight children’s capacity in conceptualising complex issues and provide insight towards how children define and deconstruct wellbeing. Two strategies were used for analysis. The first invited the children to analyse, code and discuss their own data. This allowed the important aspects of the information provided, as determined by the children, to be elucidated. The second strategy utilised a thematic content analysis conducted by the researcher. The themes identified across both forms of analysis are discussed separately, and as complementary to obtaining a more complete understanding of how children both define and conceptualise the various components of wellbeing.

Expected Outcomes

The multifaceted nature of wellbeing is highlighted through the children’s deconstruction of wellbeing. The children’s definitions and individual ratings are discussed as existing within a range of typologies that may serve to represent how wellbeing may be different for children than adults. When the children’s definitions are contrasted with their initial deconstructions, a noticeable difference is observed with the importance of relationships showing a clear decrease in the children’s formal definitions. By contrast, the importance of self as central to wellbeing noticeably increased from initial deconstruction to formal definition. The function of wellbeing was also explored with the children consistently determining positive affectations. This contrasts with the children’s previous deconstructions of wellbeing that identified the interplay of both positive and negative aspects as integral to an individual’s wellbeing. The information revealed through this research provides valuable insight towards how children define and conceptualise wellbeing and has implications for how children’s contributions to discussions about wellbeing can be included when seeking to cater for children’s wellbeing in different contexts.

References

Adams, K. (2012). Childhood in crisis? Perceptions of 7 – 11 year olds on being a child and the implications for education’s well-being agenda, Education 3 – 13, 1 – 15. Ben-Arieh, A. (2006) Measuring and monitoring the well-being of young children around the world, Paper commissioned for the EFA Global Monitoring Report 2007, Strong Foundations: early childhood care and education. UNESCO. Coppock, V. (2010). Cause for hope or despair? Limits to theory and policy in relation to contemporary developments in promoting mental health and wellbeing in schools in the UK and implications for children’s rights, Advances in School Mental Health Promotion, 3(1). 52-62. Crivello, G., Camfield, L., & Woodhead, M. (2009). How can children tell us about their wellbeing? Exploring the potential of participatory research approaches within Young Lives, Social Indicators Research, 90, 51 -72. Fattore, T., Mason, J., & Watson, E. (2007). Children’s Conceptualisation(s) of their well-being, Social Indicators Research, 80, 5-29. James, A., Jenks, C., & Prout, A. (1998) Theorizing Childhood. Polity Press: Cambridge, UK. 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. Mayall, B. (2002) Towards a Sociology for Childhood, Open University Press: UK. Pollard, E. L. and Lee, P. D. (2003) Child well-being: a systematic review of the literature, Social Indicators Research, 61, 59 – 78. Qvortrup, J. (1996). Monitoring Childhood: Its Social, Economic and Political Features. In E. Verhellen (ed) Monitoring Children’s Rights, The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International. UNICEF (2007). Child Poverty in Perspective: An overview of Child Well-Being in Rich Countries, Innocenti Report Card 7. Report available online www.unicef-irc.org/publications.pdf.rc7_eng.pdf United Nations (1989) United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, Geneva; United Nations.

Author Information

Jenna K. Swan (presenting / submitting)
Australian Catholic University
Education
Helensvale

Update Modus of this Database

The current conference programme can be browsed in the conference management system (conftool) and, closer to the conference, in the conference app.
This database will be updated with the conference data after ECER. 

Search the ECER Programme

  • Search for keywords and phrases in "Text Search"
  • Restrict in which part of the abstracts to search in "Where to search"
  • Search for authors and in the respective field.
  • For planning your conference attendance, please use the conference app, which will be issued some weeks before the conference and the conference agenda provided in conftool.
  • If you are a session chair, best look up your chairing duties in the conference system (Conftool) or the app.