{"id":9558,"date":"2025-01-31T19:39:02","date_gmt":"2025-01-31T19:39:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/qpol.qub.ac.uk\/?p=9558"},"modified":"2025-01-31T19:39:02","modified_gmt":"2025-01-31T19:39:02","slug":"how-to-do-better-in-childrens-participation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/qpol\/how-to-do-better-in-childrens-participation\/","title":{"rendered":"What to do when you (really) can do nothing at all and how to do better in children\u2019s participation."},"content":{"rendered":"\n

\u2018All models are wrong but some are useful\u2019.<\/em> This quotation from George Box<\/a> about statistics is sometimes cited when people are discussing models of child participation.  As the author of one of the most widely used of these, I have often wondered  if this in fact holds true in this space.  My take on the various child participation \u2018models\u2019 that I have read is that none are wrong (in their own terms) and all are useful (in their own way).  What none of them can do – or, in fact, try to do –  is to capture the full complexity of child participation. So when someone says that they \u2018use\u2019 Hart instead of Shier or Lundy etc.,  it suggests to me that they may not understand that these three and others all do different things, i.e. none are \u2018wrong\u2019 and all are useful in their own way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

My attention turned to this recently, not because the existing models were being misused but because they were not being used at all.\u00a0 I harnessed my frustration at a high profile child rights initiative that had failed to engage with children\u2019s views into developing an infographic<\/a> which tried to capture what people who are making decisions that affect children as a group should do when they really <\/em>cannot involve children. \u00a0Using a flowchart, the infographic also set out what meaningful participation could and should look like drawing on the Lundy model and G<\/a>erison Lansdown\u2019s 3 Cs<\/a> classification for types of participation. This combination is my personal go-to, because they do different but complementary things and have a simplicity that belies their complexity. However, as I said, there are many others \u2013 all useful.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What began as a keyboard protest generated a lot of interest and a flurry of requests to reproduce and translate.  While I am delighted in the interest (channel your anger productively, people!), I have a concern that the infographic could be lifted and used without a full understanding of the  law (particularly its child rights roots) and research that lies behind the questions in the flowchart.  So this blog is an attempt to capture the complexity of child participation processes as an accompaniment to the  much requested fully downloadable flowchart below. The focus is on collective participation \u2013 decisions such as laws or policies that affect children as a group \u2013 and, as with all my work, the framework that guides it is the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The very first decision is whether to involve children at all and that\u2019s not even really a \u2018decision\u2019 as opposed to a \u2018duty\u2019 if it is a matter that affects them.  Children have a right to be included in all matters affecting them and the best way to find out whether that is the case is to ask them: a seemingly obvious but frequently ignored first step. The reality is that there are few decisions that do not affect children at all so the trajectory should usually then proceed to seeking their views. However, there are some exceptions which I note \u2013 the children do not want to be involved (e.g. no interest, no time); there has been recent engagement on the same issue; and, in rare instances, it is not safe for children to be involved.  However, all too often the reality is that children are often not involved because it does not suit adults, who sometimes use the excuse of \u2018tokenism\u2019 as an excuse for what is, in effect, a denial of a human right (see Lundy, 2018).<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Down the right side of the infographic, I describe a process to be followed by those who haven\u2019t involved children.  The first, obvious and right thing to do is to find out what children have already said on the issue to others and use it to inform the decision. There is now a plethora of research on children\u2019s views on most issues \u2013 not perfect but better than no sense at all of how the issue is experienced by children.   The second is to be open and honest about the fact that children have not been involved and why \u2013 no fudges such as children\u2019s views have been \u2018woven in\u2019 (to which my answer was \u2018where?\u2019). And finally, there should be some reflection on how to do better the next time. That is where Hub Na nOg\u2019s planning checklist based on the Lundy model<\/a> would be helpful for those who wish to repent and do better.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Down the left side is my take on a process for meaningful child participation. It begins by looking at forms of participation using Gerison Lansdown\u2019s crystal clear 3 Cs model \u2013 consultation, collaboration and child-led<\/a>. Let me stress two things:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(a) while we are always aiming for as much participation as possible, none is necessarily better than the other  – it is what is right for the decision and context and <\/p>\n\n\n\n

(b) most processes involve a mix of all three. Alternatives to this are the seminal Hart\u2019s Ladder of Participation<\/a> (often criticized- wrongly – for being hierarchical) and Harry Shier\u2019s Pathways to Participation<\/a> which is also very useful as it offers a logical process for organisations wishing to improve.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Whatever the form\/level\/type of participation, it should be safe, inclusive and meaningful. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has provided guidance on child participation in General Comment no. 12,<\/a> including a set of nine basic requirements.  This is also where the Lundy model<\/a>, which reads Article 12 of the CRC along with other key child rights provisions, also comes in, irrespective of the form or level of participation.  Written before the Committee\u2019s general comment, the Lundy Model covers many of the same headings (safe, voluntary, inclusive, respectful, accountable etc) in a way that people seem to find memorable and usable. Ireland\u2019s Hub na n\u00d3g has published a number of tools that can be used to plan and evaluate<\/a> whether children were afforded the core elements of the Lundy Model – space, voice, audience and influence.  A crucial component of influence is feedback to the children involved as to what happened to their views \u2013 the critical juncture of accountability to children. Here I signpost my \u20184F\u2019 Framework  for Feedback (Lundy, 2018), also part of the Irish Participation Framework<\/a> and which has been used to produce a really useful tool for giving feedback to children<\/a> developed in collaboration with children and the Maltese Children\u2019s Commissioner with and for the Maltese Government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Feedback is sometimes confused with creating a child-friendly version but they are not necessarily the same. Having a version of the finished product that children can read is not equivalent to telling them what happened to their views (although that too must be child-friendly and could be combined). The document that I show in the flowchart is a screenshot from guidance for the European Commission<\/a> where we suggest that child-friendly means accurate and accessible, appropriate and appealing and that it must always entail child authorship. The flowchart finishes with a process of reflection: participation is always imperfect, offering learning. That will come from the children involved and, again, Hub na n\u00d3g has a set of tools<\/a>  based on the Lundy Model that can be used for that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Child participation can be complex not least because it is context and child specific.  The Lundy Model\u2019s appeal is in part due to its flexibility \u2013 it allows diverse decision-makers to colour themselves in to the quadrants. There are other very helpful models that focus on context and, in particular, relationships. These include: the \u2018lattice of child participation\u2019<\/a> (Cath Larkins,  Johanna Kili and Kati Palsanen), Gerison Lansdown\u2019s conceptualization of adolescent participation <\/a>integrating my model with hers in an ecosystem of participation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

While it can at times be frustrating to work in this field given that change comes, to quote Yeats,  \u2018dropping slow\u2019, consolation comes from the fact that there is a wave of scholars and practitioners using and adapting the existing approaches (a special shout out to the Linkedin Lundy Model Network)<\/a> and creating, often with children, new ways of understanding and implementing children\u2019s collective right to be heard.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I finish most talks on the Lundy model with two points. There is no one right way to do this \u2013 so this infographic is offered as another tool to support those who are trying to do their best. And finally, it is the right of the child not the gift of adults  (Lundy, 2007<\/a>) so, you know, there really are very few genuine excuses for not trying at all.  To quote the Irish Education Inspectorate,<\/a> who have been on an incremental, yet sustained, child participation journey, #DoThenDoBetter.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

About the Author<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Professor Laura Lundy<\/a> is Co-Director of the Centre for Children\u2019s Rights, Professor of Children’s Rights at Queen\u2019s University, Belfast and Professor of Law at University College Cork. Her expertise is international children’s rights with a particular focus on the implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child in law and policy, education rights and children’s right to participate in decision-making.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Professor Laura Lundy shares a new infographic she has developed that shows what meaningful participation by children could and should look like. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2507,"featured_media":9570,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[45],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-9558","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-children-and-young-people"],"mb":[],"acf":{"authors":{"simple_value_formatted":"","value_formatted":"","value":"","field":{"ID":9774,"key":"field_66d0cbf58f930","label":"Authors","name":"authors","aria-label":"","prefix":"acf","type":"relationship","value":null,"menu_order":1,"instructions":"","required":0,"id":"","class":"","conditional_logic":0,"parent":9772,"wrapper":{"width":"","class":"","id":""},"post_type":["authors"],"post_status":["publish"],"taxonomy":"","filters":["search"],"return_format":"id","min":0,"max":10,"allow_in_bindings":0,"elements":["featured_image"],"bidirectional":0,"bidirectional_target":[],"_name":"authors","_valid":1}},"description":{"simple_value_formatted":"","value_formatted":"","value":"","field":{"ID":9776,"key":"field_66d2183027749","label":"Description","name":"description","aria-label":"","prefix":"acf","type":"wysiwyg","value":null,"menu_order":3,"instructions":"","required":0,"id":"","class":"","conditional_logic":0,"parent":9772,"wrapper":{"width":"","class":"","id":""},"default_value":"","allow_in_bindings":0,"tabs":"all","toolbar":"basic","media_upload":0,"delay":1,"_name":"description","_valid":1}}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/qpol\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/76\/2025\/01\/English.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"amp_enabled":true,"mfb_rest_fields":["title","jetpack_featured_media_url","jetpack_sharing_enabled","amp_enabled"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/qpol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9558","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/qpol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/qpol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/qpol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2507"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/qpol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9558"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/qpol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9558\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/qpol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9570"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/qpol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9558"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/qpol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9558"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.qub.ac.uk\/qpol\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9558"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}