Molnar (2002) as ‘the conceptual distinctions made by social actors to categorize objects, people, practices, and even time and space’ (p 168). These classification systems, which are based on cultural attitudes, create hierarchies between people that confer on some the status to exercise power and exclude others (Lamont et al, 2015). The ‘participation boundaries’ drawn by the research participants in this study involved situations in which they felt they could not speak with children and young people, for example when the participants feared that their involvement in decision-making might distress or retraumatize children and young people. Study participants did not involve children and young people when they could not verbalize their feelings and opinions because they were incapacitated by a severe physical disability or mental illness. A child’s age served as a prominent symbolic divide between children’s inclusion as well: children 12 years and older were typically viewed as individuals who should participate, while younger children were more likely excluded from genuine participation. There were country differences. Several of the US study participants described teens as ‘liars’ and ‘manipulators’ of adults. The types of perceptions that workers had of the teens they worked with were important because the participants who perceived them in negative terms did not appear to seriously consider their opinions. The participants in Norway were more likely to regard teens as participants because they viewed them as reasonable agents and strong enough to resist the child protection agency’s interventions. Many study participants in both countries reasoned that an intervention measure, such as, for example, counselling or a drug use disorder treatment, would be fruitless unless teens bought into it.
Questions and concepts
I examined the views and experiences of child protection workers in Norway and the US to illustrate how workers in countries with two different child protection systems promote children’s participation in their interactions with them. This book answers questions along three thematic areas: first, the study participants’ views about why children can, should or must not participate in decision-making, and workers’ justifications for providing participatory opportunities for some while excluding other children; second, the study participants’ ways of doing participation; and third, the impact of laws, policies and organizational procedures on workers’ participatory practices. Table 1.1 illustrates these thematic areas and research questions.
Table 1.1:Topics and research questions
| Thematic area | Research question |
| Child protection workers’ views about children’s participation | When do child protection workers think that children can, should or must not participate? What are the beliefs that workers draw from to justify allowing some children to participate while excluding others? |
| Child protection workers’ ways of doing participation | How do child protection workers do participation in Norway and the US? |
| Effects of legal, policy and organizational contexts | How do laws, policies and organizational procedures facilitate or impede children’s genuine participation? |
The term ‘doing participation’ spans the entire spectrum from fostering minimal participation by listening to a child’s opinions and reflections without taking them into consideration to promoting genuine participation in decision-making. The terms ‘genuine participation’ and ‘providing children with genuine participatory opportunities’ refer to child protection workers listening to children and considering their wishes in their deliberations when making decisions in a case. For my use of genuine participation, I employed the definition put forward by Archard and Skivenes (2009b). It contains two important elements: first, that children’s authentic voice is heard, that is, children must have the opportunity to develop, reflect on and express their own opinions about what they think should happen; second, that children’s views are taken into consideration in the deliberations about what should happen. Their reflections and opinions carry some weight in a decision that child protection workers make, even if their wishes do not necessarily drive that decision.
Hart’s (1992) and Shier’s (2001) rankings of the different levels of children’s involvement are valuable in capturing the fine-grained gradations of children’s empowerment through participation. Both these indices of children’s participation in decision-making highlight the difference between a child’s full empowerment through genuine participation, and a child’s exclusion from power through manipulation by adults or participation that is mere tokenism. Hart depicted different levels of children’s participation using the image of a ladder, with the lowest rank delineating the manipulation of children by adults. The highest level represents decisions initiated by children that are made in collaboration with adults, with children on equal footing (Hart, 1992, p 8). Similarly, Shier distinguished between five levels of empowerment, including: listening to children; supporting children in expressing their opinions and wishes; taking children’s opinions seriously; involving children in decisions; and sharing power and responsibility with children (Shier, 2001, p 110). When all the levels are woven together, this constitutes ‘genuine participation’.
Thomas’s (2002) metaphor of a climbing wall of participation is pertinent in conceptualizing participation because it incorporates different kinds of life circumstances into a theoretical model of children’s empowerment. The six bricks in the climbing wall conceptualized by Thomas consist of: (1) children’s level of autonomy to make decisions; (2) their choice over participating; (3) their control over the process of making decisions; (4) the information children possess about what is happening and what their rights are; (5) the support children experience in voicing their opinions and wishes; and (6) children’s voice in the setting where deliberation and decision-making happens. Thomas’s conceptualization of participation adds to the other theoretical frames by differentiating between various kinds of children and situations in terms of capacities and opportunities: for example, children who can advocate for themselves may need less support to voice their opinions than children who are less assertive (Thomas, 2002). The support of a child protection worker may make all the difference for children who are less vocal. Thomas (2007) emphasized that, ‘different kinds of participatory activities and relationships are appropriate to different settings and circumstances’ (p 205). This is important in child protection because children meet child protection workers in a variety of settings, and their relationships and participation in them may differ. A child protection investigation setting differs from a case review meeting or a court hearing about child removal or parental visitation. During an investigation, child protection workers focus on assessing the risk to a child, often under extreme time pressure if the child is in imminent danger. In this situation, workers need to take the necessary steps to remove the child from home to keep the child safe.
I shall demonstrate that child protection workers ‘do participation’ in their daily practice (promote children’s participation in their interactions with them) in five ways: by actively engaging children and building a respectful rapport with them; by providing information about the case process and the rationale behind the child protection agency’s decisions; by giving children time and space to develop and express their opinions; by including teenagers as consultants and collaborators in important decisions, thereby creating ‘youth citizens’; and child protection workers divest power away from themselves and towards children through ‘recognition work’. Through this type of presentation of self workers convey to children that they recognize their wishes and see them as valuable contributors to decision-making processes. These approaches, which are common to client engagement in social work,6 represent the core of the participatory practice approach of the participants in my study.
Theoretical framework
This study was mainly informed
