Suchergebnisse

AbstractThere are two key questions consistently raised by children and youth since the onset of the school strikes for climate in 2018 in the Global North: Why study for a future, which may not be there? Why spend a lot of effort to become educated, when our governments are not listening to the educated? (conf. fridaysforfuture.org, n.d). While the same questions are shared by young climate activists from the Global South, there are other interrelated economic realities that echo the disappointment, anger, disillusionment, desperation, and frustration driving those utterances in their socio‐political contexts. Comparative insights from so‐called 'developing' countries disclose that institutionalized schooling, commonly confused with education, manipulates the aspirations of younger generations and their wider societies. Contemporary global schooling is one of the key propellers of global economic agendas geared towards producing human capital that is 'employable' in the future job market. The paradox of a global education agenda geared towards generating human capital employable on a job market is that most of those jobs (if at all they will be there) continue serving the very economic system that is threatening the right to life, health, culture (especially for indigenous communities) and the best interests of future generations on this planet. As young climate activists from various countries collectively argue within the framework of the United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child, major economies are failing to protect the basic human rights of children and future generations. I suggest that the various interrelated crises evident through the key questions raised by young climate activists must be considered as part of a North–South continuum. In this paper, I reflect upon these interrelated crises by developing a decolonial childist approach to education—understood as an intergenerational relationship, implying an effort on part of present adults becoming good ancestors of the future, in the present. Such efforts require larger structural shifts which I consider by means of the four strategies I discuss building upon previous co‐reflections.

In this article, the author begins by grasping the present crisis through the social anthropological description ofoverheating. She then locates "Generation Z (Gen Z)" as a generation born into an overheated era and distinguishes their socio-political struggle for intergenerational climate justice from preceding generations. Following that, the author presents an analysis of the oppressive adultist dimensions of the challenges confronted by Gen Z activists like Greta Thunberg. She does so by engaging with examples from the German context. The objective of the discussion on adultism faced by Gen Z activists consequently establishes that young activists demonstrate relentless courage and hence their contribution deserves a legitimate place in rethinking socio-political "education." Her reading reveals that young activists are simultaneously resisting adult opposition and contributing to educating older generations about the intergenerational dimensions of the climate crisis. Therefrom, the author proposes that one may re-think the matter at hand from a childist standpoint which implies a re-cognition of pupils' agency within education i.e., intergenerational relating, as something that adults can also learn from. She suggests that an integral dimension of reflexivity in further developing childist educational theory and praxis, entails a conscious commitment tolettingchildren and youth teach adult educators too.

This article presents retrospections on selected methodological explications of a slow research process with child citizens living in the urban, Sør-Trondelag region of Norway. The process was akin to what Gallacher and Gallagher have termed "muddling through" and was about primarily about 'arriving at, asking and then attempting to answer the question: What is the scope for the philosophical blossoming of adults when they enter children's playfully constructed worlds as guests? Particularly, I engage with a post-empirical phase colloquium with one of my main co-explorers, Enaya Mubasher, in the Child and Youth Seminar at the Department of Education and Lifelong Learning, University of Trondheim (Norway) in March 2017. Enaya, a (primary school student at that time) and I first met in 2012 during our commonly shared time in a kindergarten in Trondheim, where I was a kindergarten assistant for Enaya's group and played with Enaya as part of my job. While I did not first meet Enaya as a "research participant," our relationship evolved into a co-explorer dynamic after I had stopped working in the kindergarten. Playing with Enaya, included among other efforts, consistently playing with my understanding of what it means to be "me" as an independent "I," and with it what was expected of me as an (adult) researcher within adult-centric institutional framings. The retrospections accentuate relationality as a defining dimension of rationality in research processes to advance conversations at the intersections of postqualitative and slow research with children from a childist standpoint.

In this piece, we reflect upon a recent article published in Fennia by Ansell and colleagues. We identify and discuss aspects of learning that educational research, policies and institutions can consider, addressing the needs and subjectivities of learners and activating a politics around rights in education. Rights in education foreground the intrinsic value of learning,inviting us to realign the purpose of education with the overall purpose of life on this planet. It pursues a 'bottom-up' strategy for rethinking education as community formation to incorporate complex sources of knowledge and modes of knowing and becoming for children. In order to think about rights in education, we uphold an analytical distinction between schooling and education. The distinction enables us to raise some questions, reflect on them and suggest preliminary ideas for decolonial, childist strategies to envisage education, highlighting how education and the 'future' areintimately woven and exploring what they mean for each other and for childhood. We do so particularly by critiquing 'western schooling' as a mode of learning which is a conspirator of capitalism deeply rooted in philosophical racism and contributing to a global epistemological loss. Finally, we outline four strategies of moving forward with a decolonial,childist lens of reimagining education as community formation and welcome further discussions on rights in education.

The question that the authors of this article are collectively concerned with is as follows: how is it possible to protect children without disempowering them? To this end, the authors work to change adultcentric scholarly and social norms that justify rationales that marginalize children. The article begins with a theoretical overview of childism, in its transformative sense, with special attention to how childism relates to intersectional analyses. In doing so, age is highlighted as an axis of marginalization with reference to adultcentrism. After that, the centrality of analyzing and problematizing adultism in educational research and practice is discussed. The discussion is followed by a presentation of the published results of 'The Adultcentrism Scale' research tool developed at the University of Bergamo and the University of LUMSA-Rome. The research tool is used to evaluate the presence of adultcentric bias in adults in relation to children and can be helpful to understanding the psychological dimensions of educational relationships. Finally, the conclusion offers suggestions for how the research tool might be a useful example to raise awareness of adultcentric bias, promoting reflections that can lead to age-inclusive transformations. Overall, then, the article initiates a pertinent dialogue for advancing children's participation rights in Nordic research and society.