Abstract
This article explores children’s actions of participation, and how these can be understood, using the concept of agency. The study is based on social constructionist theory and includes interviews with 11 children aged 7-16 who received open care interventions. It finds that children’s actions, as described by the children, are formed in relation to situational constraints ranging from actions that are accepted and sometimes encouraged, to actions that challenge the boundaries of what is permitted by their position as children. The article contributes to a broader understanding of children’s actions of participation in a social work context.
Keywords
Introduction
Children have the right to be heard on matters concerning them, but research indicates that children’s participatory rights are not adequately met in the child welfare system (Heimer and Pettersson, 2023; Heimer et al., 2018; McCafferty and Garcia 2024). The present article explores children´s participation by exploring children’s descriptions of participation when meeting social workers or other professionals. It is based on an interview study of children who have received interventions provided by the Swedish child welfare services (CWS), and we place the children at the centre in order to find out how they describe actions of participation in relation to their context and the intervention process over time.
Within the Swedish child protection system, children come to the attention of the authorities via a voluntary application or, in the majority of cases, via mandatory reports of welfare concerns. In 2021, the authorities received 422,000 such reports of which a majority concerned parental difficulties (Socialstyrelsen, 2023a). When deemed necessary, a child protection investigation is initiated. In some cases, when child protection services (CPS) assess that the problems identified could be improved via a voluntary open care intervention, children are allocated an intervention while still living at home with their family. Open care interventions are mainly carried out in the child’s home or at the CWS office with goals set by the CPS in consultation with the family. The intervention is documented in the child’s care plan and followed up by the CPS (Socialstyrelsen, 2023b). The intervention is carried out by a family social worker (hereafter FSW) who designs the intervention in consultation with the family.
The right of children to be heard is defined in Article 12 of The United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child Act (2018) and in The Social Services Act (2001). According to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (2009: p. 16) the child has the right to choose whether or not to express their views. It is an option available to them, not a requirement. To ensure that all children are afforded this right, professionals have the responsibility to create conditions in which children can express themselves (UN, 2009: p. 20). However, research from Sweden and a number of other countries shows that regardless of structural similarities or differences in the organization of social work
A guiding principle within Nordic child protection systems is to always use “the least intrusive form of intervention” (Pösö et al., 2014: 478), even in cases where children are experiencing quite challenging circumstances. In line with this, a significant portion of social work with children is conducted in the form of open care interventions (Socialstyrelsen, 2023a), a context that Bergström et al. (2023) have shown to be characterized by diversity and local variations regarding the interventions employed. Research also shows that children’s participatory rights regarding open care interventions are not being adequately met (Heimer and Pettersson, 2023; Heimer et al., 2018). Starting from the premise that CWS constitute one of the arenas in which child participation is potentially done (Markström et al., 2024), the arena’s contradictory and diverse elements make it an interesting context to explore and one where children´s actions of participation could be researched further.
This article aims to explore children´s actions of participation and how these can be understood in relation to situational constraints using the concept of agency. Our research questions are: - How can children’s descriptions of different forms of action be understood using the concept of agency? - What situational constraints emerge as relevant, and what significance do they have for children’s actions?
Children’s agency and participation–research context
Children have the right to be heard in matters that concern them; children aged 12 and over can be given open care interventions without their parents’ consent; and children aged 15 have the right to independently apply for open care interventions without parental consent (The Social Services Act, 2001: Ch. 3 p. 6 a). However, research suggests that children are not given the opportunity to define the problems, resulting in less effective interventions that do not address the problems at hand (Heimer et al., 2018). Heimer and Pettersson (2023) found that the opportunity to offer interventions based on the child’s consent was not utilized in any of the cases they studied. Instead they found that the parents’ consent or lack thereof determined whether or not the child would be given an open care intervention. Furthermore, many children were not asked about their views on support, or these views were not documented, and nor were their needs assessed (Heimer and Pettersson, 2023).
The issue of children’s agency and participation in interventions provided by the CWS is thus vital. The idea that children should be regarded as actors is one of the central arguments of childhood studies. This implies that children have the capacity to make decisions, express their ideas, and influence the direction not only of their own lives, but also of the society in which they live (James and James, 2012; Prout and James, 2015). Kuczynski and De Mol (2015) suggest that children are agents from birth, since their innate attachment behaviour means they are born to interact with other people. At the same time, children’s lives are largely controlled by adults, and they lack influence over societal processes that greatly influence their lives, such as legal, educational and political processes (Prout and James, 2015). Their subordinate position in society also affects their opportunities to both assert their agency and have it recognized by the adult world (Mayall, 2002). Children should not be regarded as a homogeneous group. Structural factors, such as poverty and racism, affect children in various ways, including their capacity to participate. Furthermore, although children’s participation is viewed as important by both children and social workers, it is not realized to the desired extent (Van Bijleveld et al., 2015), and participation seems to be limited by conditions set by adults (Twum-Danso Imoh, 2023). Morrison et al. (2019) have explored children’s agency in statutory encounters with child protection services in the UK, showing that children chose to act even in situations where they have limited influence, but that social workers focused on “containing” the children’s agency rather than allowing real change to occur.
Bolin (2016) explored how children perceive their own agentic capacity to exert influence in interpersonal collaborative meetings and found that children were well aware of their subordinate position in meetings and their limited chances of influencing the outcome of the meetings. The children handled this by expressing resistance in the form of disinterest, exit-strategies and trying to end the meetings (Bolin, 2016). Thus, children’s agency was expressed in ways that may be difficult for adults to identify. Nevertheless, children are found to engage in therapy sessions for example by expressing their stance or emotions, and there are several ways for social workers to increase children’s involvement, e.g. by maintaining relevance and adjusting intensity (Edman et al., 2022, 2024).
Children’s agency is a dynamic concept that is negotiated and renegotiated in interaction with people and the context in which it takes place (Abebe, 2019; Robson et al., 2007), and it is important to note that children with very limited resources might be able to successfully use these resources to achieve change (Mizen and Ofosu-Kusi, 2013; Mohammed, 2021). Furthermore, Twum-Danso Imoh (2023) highlights the lack of attention given to children’s independent actions of participation—i.e., those undertaken without adult support. Here, we build on these insights to further develop knowledge on the different types of actions found in children´s interview accounts, and on how these can be understood in relation to situational constraints.
Theoretical concepts
The article is based on social constructionist theory, in which the meaning of child, childhood and children’s agency are considered to be socially constructed in a certain context and in relation to a range of factors (James and James, 2012; Prout and James, 2015). Klocker (2007) illustrates how agency can be described in terms of “thin” and “thick” agency. ‘Thin’ agency refers to acting within restrictive settings with limited options, whereas ‘thick’ agency involves broader choice and greater freedom (Klocker, 2007).
Factors in the surrounding context and relationships can function as “thinners” and “thickeners” of children’s agency by expanding or reducing the possible ways children have to influence a situation (Klocker, 2007). We consider children’s actions as part of the participation process in line with Fernqvist’s (2013: 26) understanding of agency as “a part of, or a prerequisite for, participation” and we refer to them as actions of participation. These actions can be expressions of thin or thick agency. By exploring the children’s descriptions of their actions, we focus on understanding how the children perceive the intervention process and their participation in it. Kuczynski and De Mol (2015) refer to social relational theory, noting that children and parents are both agents but have unequal power to exercise their agency. When analysing our data we found Kuczynski’s (2003) categories of power resources to be useful: “individual resources”, which include information, knowledge, and the ability to stand up for oneself; “relational resources”, which refer to individuals’ access to relationships that support them in exercising their agency; and “cultural resources”, which refer to rights in the form of cultural factors and legislation (Kuczynski, 2003; Kuczynski and De Mol, 2015).
Method
The article is based on a qualitative semi-structured interview study in a large city in Sweden which included children with experience of receiving open care interventions directed at children and their families provided by CWS. The material is part of a broader research project on children’s agency and participation in open care interventions provided by CWS.
Participants and recruitment
Eleven children (7 boys and 4 girls) aged 7-16 participated in the study. Inclusion criteria were: (a) age (6-17), and (b) having an ongoing family intervention via CWS.
An inclusive age-frame was chosen based on children’s right to be heard and the fact that there is no lower age limit imposed on this right according to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (2009: p. 21). The lower age limit was established based on a report, which states that children in this age group tend to have the skills needed to communicate detailed descriptions (Socialstyrelsen, 2018), however, the results have potential relevance for a broader age group, since there is significant diversity in the age and background of the sample.
Participants were located in the same municipality, and were receiving child and family counselling facilitated by CWS, although from different CWS offices – the open care services provided were the same across the different offices. The interventions are usually provided for 6 months at a time, generally for no more than a year, and sessions usually take place at the CWS office or the families’ homes. The children were experiencing different kinds of challenges in their lives, such as domestic violence, parent-child conflicts, and issues at school.
Participants were recruited by their FSWs, who function as gatekeepers. In Sweden, an FSW is a professional social worker with a general Bachelor of Science degree in social work or an equivalent education, often with several years’ experience. FSWs were asked to provide information about the study to all families with children who met the inclusion criteria and who were receiving interventions that had been ongoing for at least half of the intended intervention period. The guardians who then consented were contacted by the first author and given additional information.
Interviews
Eight semi-structured interviews were conducted with a total of eleven children by the first author (a professional social worker with extensive experience in child and family counselling), using an interview guide focused on the child’s experience of receiving open care interventions over a period of time.
Throughout the research process, the planning and implementation focused on creating an inclusive and flexible research design that was responsive to the individual child. A semi-structured interview guide was used, focusing on the child’s contacts with the CWS and his or her participation in the ongoing intervention as major themes. The initial intention was to involve the children in creating the interview guide, but this was not possible due to the pandemic. Instead, the first author’s extensive experience in providing child counselling proved highly valuable. The interviews lasted 13 to 54 minutes, depending on the child’s preferences. Flexibility was shown in structuring the length of the interview based on the child’s verbal and non-verbal signals. The children and/or their parents chose when the interview would take place and whether the interviews were to be conducted in their home, at the CWS in a room ordinarily used for child and family counselling sessions, or by video link. None chose the video link option. Throughout the interview, the first author was attentive to some of the children’s need to take breaks and engage in play, and to the fact that some children required additional opportunities to engage in drawing during the interview. The interviews were conducted individually, with one exception when a group of four siblings from the same family opted to be interviewed together. Two of the children who were interviewed individually were also siblings. Techniques such as speaking clearly about the subjects covered, not using ambiguous terms, and clarifying questions were used to create a credible material – a self-correcting interview (Cater and Överlien, 2014; Kvale and Brinkmann, 2014).
Inclusive interview techniques such as drawing or making a timeline of the child´s contacts with CWS were used to increase the children’s participation in the research based on their own wishes
The interviews were followed up in a manner chosen by the child a few weeks after the main interview, thus enabling the child to ask questions or address concerns about the interview, a technique that represents one aspect of ethical conduct when involving children in research (Näsman, 2012). A plan was established to provide support if the subject matter of the interview were to cause discomfort, but children reported that the interviews were good or okay. After the interview, the children received a cinema ticket as a thank you. No mention was made of the cinema ticket when the parents and children were asked to consent to the interview.
Analysis
The interviews were recorded and transcribed. The data were analysed using the phases of Thematic Analysis (TA), although the process was not linear but reflexive, moving back and forth through the different phases (Braun and Clarke, 2022). The process consisted of phases in which the researchers: (1) familiarized themselves with the data, including reading through the transcripts and field notes multiple times; (2) generated codes, which was initially done manually and then again using NVivo; (3) grouped the codes together to form a number of themes; (4-5) reviewed, redefined, and renamed potential themes, which resulted in fewer themes based on the central subjects and theoretical framework employed in the project. The analytical process in which the themes relevant to this article were constructed involved all authors, and agreement was reached on what these themes entailed, thus strengthening intercoder reliability.
Ethical considerations
The study has been reviewed and approved by Sweden’s Ethical Review Authority (Dnr: 2020-02219). Ethical considerations have been a guiding principle throughout the project. The data have been anonymized, and pseudonyms have been used. Guardians and children were provided with verbal and written information on several occasions, from the first contact to the follow up. Written consent was obtained from both parents and children above the age of 15. Consent also involved an ongoing discussion with the children, irrespective of age, where the child’s verbal and non-verbal signals were acknowledged throughout the process (Thulin, 2019). As children tend to be compliant in research interviews (Kvale and Brinkmann, 2014), the interviewer was careful in being sensitive to what the child wanted to share.
Limitations
The data comprise eight interviews with a total of eleven children, whose accounts of actions of participation were analysed. This means that we only have access to a selected number of children’s accounts of open care intervention processes, and thus the results are not generalizable, although a large degree of concordance with other studies makes it likely that the results are transferable to other, similar areas of social work.
Recruiting children to participate in the study via gatekeepers has been challenging. A method of data collection that contacted children directly might have given a larger and more diverse sample. Further, a research design that allowed for relationship-building through multiple interviews would potentially have provided more in-depth answers.
Results
Our analysis has categorized the actions described in the children’s interview accounts as different forms of actions using the concept of agency. The children who participated in the study had experiences of interventions provided by CWS over a period of time. However, the results include children’s accounts of meeting a school counsellor and a teacher and of circumstances that occurred during the interview. Our use of the term action, or actions of participation, does not refer to all actions described in the data by the children, but their perceived actions, in line with Prout and James’ (2015) understanding of children as social actors who not only influence their own lives but also their surroundings. Based on a social constructivist perspective, the analysis resulted in three forms of actions, that were formed in relation to the situational constraints of the context in which they were expressed. The three analytical themes are: Permissible actions, Actions beyond the permissible and Actions that disturb the existing order. While the themes exhibit similarities, each remains significant in its own right, as they each capture nuances in how children interact with an adult-led organization, namely CWS.
Permissible actions
Depending on the type of intervention and organizational constraints, children’s actions take different forms. One area in which children’s actions unfold is in situations where children are involved in making decisions, e.g. in deciding the time and place, how a session should be structured, and who should participate: First author: Have you been involved in deciding how the sessions will be organised, e.g. where they will be, when they will be? Calle (aged 16): when they [the sessions] should be, 100%, but not where. I have suggested [a place], and for Elias [her brother] to play football and talk and I to walk. (Fatima, aged 10) Then I wanted my mum to be there [at the meeting] and yes, we did that. (Billie, aged 10)
The children described how they were encouraged to participate in several different ways. Fatima’s, Billie’s, to some extent Calles’ quotes indicate that they accessed their individual power resources (Kuczynski, 2003) to speak their minds and represent their interests. At the same time, they mentioned constraints on this, as when Calle said he could decide when, but not where the sessions were held. Hence, the material shows that children are sometimes invited to have an opinion on these issues, but only within certain limits. This is something the children were keenly aware of, as we can see in Gina’s (aged 16) description of how she took the logistical aspects of booking meetings into account: Gina: I had to miss some things at school to go to these meetings […]. We had these meetings during the week and I finished quite late [...], so I had to miss some lessons, but it was okay. […]. First author: But who decided that you would meet during school hours? Gina: It was both mum and Ehsan [the FSW], but the thing is that he has other appointments so it's difficult to find the perfect time.
Gina thus described how the meetings with her FSW interfered with her schoolwork and she also gave an explanation based on the way the work was organized. She seems to have acknowledged the FSW’s limited discretion and adapted to it. When asked what an appropriate time for her would have been, she has a clear image of what would have worked best for her: First author: If you had been allowed to decide, what time would you have chosen? Gina: When I don't have the important lessons, like art, it's not important, or crafts, or during lunch.
This quote shows that Gina’s own suggestions were still during working hours, within the framework of what she perceived as possible. She seems to have accepted the conditions that prevail in this situation. However, even the action of influencing the scheduling of meetings was not offered to everyone. Hampus (aged 9), for example, was not asked directly about what time he preferred: First author: Does anyone ask you what time the sessions should take place? Hampus: No, they talk to my mum.
Throughout the interview, Hampus expressed being satisfied with his interactions with the FSW, the way the sessions were designed, and their results, but the quote seems to show that the FSW sought input from the parent rather than Hampus on this issue.
In the material we see children using different forms of actions that lie within their range of influence in this context. Although some children seemed to be invited to express their views, Hampus’ quote shows that he was not asked, and Gina’s quotes show that she might have had other wishes, but made the assessment that these were not realistic and accepted the prevailing conditions. Here, we have examples of children’s actions, in some cases accessing individual power resources (Kuczynski, 2003), but their having a very limited range of choices. Their actions undoubtedly influence the process and are important to the children, but they are all clearly within the realm of what can easily be accommodated by the FSWs and can thus be conceptualized as permissible within the situation in question. In the next section, we explore how the children used other forms of actions to navigate these limitations and search for actions beyond the permissible.
Actions beyond the permissible
When the situation only allowed for a limited scope of action, children sometimes accepted these constraints and used the type of permissible actions described in the last section. However, at other times, they pushed the boundaries in larger or smaller ways, including by taking advantage of the opportunities the situation had to offer by using resources outside the social work context or by using a meeting for something other than the purpose intended by the adult. We also see perceivably passive actions, such as “doing nothing”, which is also very much an action in itself. Billie used both non-action and relational resources (Kuczynski, 2003) to change her situation when she didn’t feel listened-to by her FSW: I didn't do anything, in the beginning I just thought it would change but it never did so I waited, and then I remember me and my mum talked about it. (Billie)
Billie hoped that the relation to her FSW was going to improve, but in the end turned to her mother hoping she could talk to the FSW and thereby influence the intervention. Before this, she had tried to influence the treatment plan by not adhering to the FSW’s wish that she should see her dad, but to no avail.
Calle decided he needed help all by himself and managed to contact child and adolescent psychiatric services without his parents knowing, making use of his individual resources (Kuczynski, 2003). I began seeing social services because I called child and adolescent psychiatric services [to] speak with a therapist. (Calle)
However, the CWS treatment plan wasn’t initiated until several reports of concerns about the boy’s situation had been received from different (adult) sources, even though Calle’s problems were largely related to his family situation. I think if I had the choice, I would have started a bit before the problems had reached their peak. (Calle)
As we can see, Calle wished that he had tried to get help before the problems had escalated, but he didn’t have access to information on where to get help. When he eventually found somewhere to call, it was the child and adolescent psychiatric services from which he could get help for himself. However, he had no way of addressing the family’s problems via the CWS.
Billie, too, initiated things herself and found ways through the system, by using silence and looks to signal that something was wrong: Then everything started [...]. He [her brother] said that he didn't want to go to dad's, but then he was leaving for preschool and everyone was stressed and so on, so mum didn't really understand what he meant, but then he said it again on the stairs and mum looked at me and I didn't say anything and she knew something was wrong. (Billie)
Both children were trying to find solutions and used different forms of actions that led to their families getting help. However, they were to a large extent dependent on adults around them to access support. Children of all ages have the right to contact social services independently of their parents. However, Calle’s quote points to the difficulty to independently apply for help, which children over the age of 15 have a right to do according to Ch. 3 Paragraph 6 a of The Social Services Act (2001).
In the material we see children using forms of actions, such as silence and “doing nothing”, which may be perceived as passive but should not be overlooked. These can, alongside more apparently active actions such as speaking up or decision making, be seen as significant actions within this context. As Kuczynski and De Mol (2015) have noted in their discussion of the agency children express in parent-child relationships, we might need to learn to recognise and acknowledge these apparently passive actions as expressions of agency. The material also includes actions such as finding ways to access help when it is difficult to contact the CWS. All these forms of actions, both apparently passive and more active, can be seen as examples of children using different ways to navigate and find new ways through the system. The actions also reveal situational constraints; Calle found it difficult to access support from CWS when needed. In fact, it took several reports of concern for him to eventually receive a family intervention. The next section looks at forms of action that expand the realm of possibilities even more, and that show us the potentially disruptive power of the actions of children.
Actions that disturb the existing order
So, what possible ways do children have to act upon situations that are perceived as unacceptable? One form of action revealed by the data involves resistance by avoiding meetings. This action is relevant because it is one of the few things children can do to challenge unfair conditions from their subordinate position as children when interacting with an adult-centric organization such as CWS. Gina used actions of resistance by not going back to a professional helper, a school counsellor, who was not perceived as trustworthy since the counsellor spoke to her mother about things Gina perceived as confidential without Ginas’ knowledge. First author: How did you notice they had told your mom? Gina: When mom got a call at home, and then she came to me like, ‘Did you say this to [counsellor]?’ First author: So you weren’t told they were going to talk to her? Gina: No, and then I stopped going to that counsellor because I knew I couldn’t trust her. I stopped going there. I didn't dare to talk to her anymore [...] and instead I started solving my problems by myself. [...] I started talking to my [new] counsellor in 8th grade, so from 6th to 8th grade I didn't talk to anyone. (Gina)
Gina chose not to go back to the counsellor when she discovered that the counsellor had breached her trust, instead resorting to solving her problems herself. She seems to draw power from her individual resources (Kuczynski, 2003). Gina’s quotes can be seen as an example of the agency of children and adults being comparable, but their having differing access to power (cf. Kuczynski and De Mol, 2015). In her own way, she avoided the problem and solved the issue at hand, but this left her without access to professional help.
During one interview, Samir explained that he had changed his parents’ answers in a survey that their FSW asked the parents to complete: I saw that 25% of the questions were wrong, they were answered incorrectly, so I corrected them, but I understand that the children are not allowed to see it, so I just wanted to tell you that I have seen these papers [questionnaires].[...] I want her [his FSW] to get these answers. (Samir via the interpreter)
Samir described that he had taken it upon himself to change the survey answers. He was clearly going beyond the boundaries of what children are supposed to see and do in this situation (cf. Fernqvist, 2013) and he was resisting his assigned role by insisting that his FSW get the papers that he had made changes to. The material also contains the example of Gina, who spoke up when students were facing racism in her school environment: He favoured [some children in] the class and he would always send the students of colour out, and he would always shout at them and the ones who weren’t foreigners he didn't even pay attention to. They could do what they wanted. They could have their mobile phone during the lesson, but he would always single out the immigrants and I told [Sofia, the FSW] and she contacted the school, and it got a bit better after that. (Gina)
Having less power than her teacher, Gina accessed individual power resources and the relational resources (Kuczynski, 2003) that were available to her in this specific situation, in the form of the FSW, to address a problem she had experienced in her school environment, and thus influenced a situation of importance to herself and maybe other children affected by it.
The data include examples of children’s actions having the potential to disrupt and change not only their own situation, but also the surrounding context. The children access individual power resources to exert resistance, and relational power resources (Kuczynski, 2003) to even out power dynamics. The material shows that circumstances will sometimes leave children with a limited range of options. We see examples of situations the children find unacceptable, with the children being left to simply avoid situations and not participate in the ways expected of them, in Gina’s case leaving her to solve her problems herself. Sometimes these actions lead to change, but not always in a way the adult world is comfortable with. In addition, some of the children’s actions also involve resisting or protesting power relations in their everyday lives, such as the position of being a child or student, or systemic power in the form of racism, for example.
Discussion
This article has explored children´s actions of participation and how these can be understood in relation to situational constraints using the concept of agency. Using a social constructionist lens, we have looked at the different forms children’s actions take in relation to the context. The analysis demonstrates that the perceived actions can be categorized into three themes: Permissible actions, Actions beyond the permissible and Actions that disturb the existing order. The three forms of actions are very much related to the situations in which they take place and to relevant situational constrains.
Permissible actions entail the actions of children that are accepted and sometimes encouraged, such as suggesting a time or a place for meetings, and who should participate in the sessions. The results indicate that these actions are constrained and that there is a limited range of options. The theme Actions beyond the permissible reveals actions that take place within contextual boundaries and sometimes beyond. These actions aim at creating change and sometimes new ways through the system. Some actions are seemingly passive, such as “doing nothing” while some are more active, such as finding ways to access help, which also reveal the limitations faced by children in accessing support. Actions that disturb the existing order include examples of children’s actions, such as resistance and protest, that can disrupt the power dynamic and that may not always be comfortable for the adult world. We also see how ending a contact with a school counsellor out of fear are actions taken by the children from their position as children with a restricted range of options. The themes reveal examples of how children access individual, relational, and cultural resources (Kuczynski, 2003), and in some cases the lack of such resources and the consequences this has on the means of action available to them.
How then can we understand the perceived actions found in the children´s interview accounts in relation to situational constraints using the concept of agency? Research shows that the context may impose constraints in the form of organisational factors that prevent social workers creating conditions that support children’s participation (Bastian et al., 2022; Grefve, 2017; Munro, 2011). To understand our findings, it may be helpful to use Klocker’s (2007) terms thick and thin agency. Thick agency refers to the possibility of acting on a wide range of issues, while thin agency refers to having the opportunity to influence only restricted areas, with few accessible alternatives (Klocker, 2007). The results mainly contain examples of thin agency – children can exert influence but only in restricted areas, e.g. children being invited to suggest a time for the session, but with few available options that sometimes conflict with school attendance, which plays a fundamental role in their overall development and well-being. The concept thin agency also helps us acknowledge the seemingly small actions taken by children in this sometimes-restricted context.
The material also suggests that “thinners” (Klocker, 2007) can be found in the way CWS are organized. Even though different practices are used around the country and across the world, we have seen an example of what could be perceived as a “thinner” in the way that it was difficult for Calle to access assistance from the CWS. The lack of information suitable for children, and authorities being inaccessible to children have been identified as obstacles for children accessing their rights (SOU 2023:40, 2023). Calle’s experience of not being able to access support from CWS is supported by research, which has noted that although children over the age of 15 can be granted open care interventions without parental consent, this option is rarely used (Heimer and Pettersson, 2023). It is also worth mentioning that the age limit has recently been lowered to 12 years old (The Social Services Act, 2001: Ch. 3 p. 6 a). Additionally, scholars have noted that despite recognising children as “active social beings” (Prout and James, 2015: 25) adults primarily retain the power over decisions that influence children’s lives and define the welfare provided (James and James, 2012; Prout and James, 2015).
At the same time it is important not to disregard children’s right to protection, and that children have the right to protection and participation (The United Nation Convention on the Rights of the Child Act, 2018). At times, seeing children as actors can come into conflict with their needs for care and protection, and research shows that social workers have difficulties seeing children as both vulnerable and as agents. Children are at risk of not being listened to or protected (Eriksson and Näsman, 2008). Wågby Gräfe (2022) discusses how assumptions about agency and autonomy overlook mutual interdependencies, which Prout (2011) refers to as ”a complex web of interdependencies” (Prout 2011: 8), and that social workers’ assessments of children’s competence tend to limit children’s opportunities to influence important matters. As described by Prout (2011), we are all dependent on others and there is in fact no contradiction; children can be both social actors with the right to participation and vulnerable and in need of protection (Eriksson and Näsman, 2008; Mizen and Ofosu-Kusi, 2013).
The results suggest that children resort to different forms of perceived actions in the context of open care interventions and when meeting FSWs, a teacher and a school counsellor. Some actions can be described as permissible and some, when children behave in a way that exceeds the boundaries permitted by their position as children (cf. Fernqvist, 2013), disturb the existing order. So, what happens when children don’t see any reasonable ways forward as a result of situational constraints? The material shows how Gina resorted “to solving my problems myself” when the professional helper was perceived as untrustworthy. Lee (1999) argues that if children resort to silence, this should not be seen as a lack of competence, but may be a product of the silencing process and thus a consequence of how institutions that should be meeting children’s need interact with children.
What might we learn from the children’s accounts of perceived actions of participation by applying a bottom-up approach? An acknowledgement of the accounts of different forms of actions described in this article suggests that organisations could do more to support children´s right to participation, in the form of providing access to CWS resources and structuring the support offered, by recognizing children’s actions of participation even when it goes beyond what´s expected of them as children within the participation process. Scholars such as Bolin (2018) argue that it is possible to organize services in line with children’s agency, from the way meetings between social workers and clients are constructed to the way services are provided at a structural level. While this may be possible, it raises the important question of why such an approach has not been more widely adopted. Power plays an important role in the interaction between social workers and clients, and the power imbalance is often even greater between children and social workers. As Fernqvist (2013) notes, children’s presence alone can challenge the established order, and it becomes even more problematic if children act outside their position as children. What would happen if the actions of children that challenge the power balance were made visible? To realise child participation in a meaningful way, a redistribution of power is necessary, yet this process is often complex and difficult. The study’s results indicate that inviting children to participate is easier in areas that have a less significant impact. Sharing real decision-making power in matters that affect the structure of adult-centric organisations would represent a much bigger challenge to open care service providers.
The findings suggest that there is a need for further research on children who receive open care interventions. In Sweden suggestions have been made to improve opportunities for children to assert their rights, with some of the suggestions echoing the strengthened rights that children have in countries such as the UK (SOU 2023:40, 2023). However, it is important to note that strengthening support does not guarantee the realization of rights. Considering the power imbalance between children and adults, or between children and adult-centric organizations, children’s rights should not be merely acknowledged on paper. Fulfilling those rights requires practical efforts such as adapting communication methods, offering accessible spaces, and fostering a culture in which children’s voices are genuinely valued. It is about shifting perspectives so that children are not seen merely as passive recipients of services, but as active participants in shaping their own experiences and futures.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank PhD students and researchers involved in National Research School for Practitioners in Social Work (FYS) for insightful feedback. We are grateful to the children who participated in the study, as well as the family social workers who helped us to reach out to them.
Ethical considerations
This study was approved by the Ethical Review Authority in Sweden (Dnr: 2020-02219) on August 08, 2020. An amendment application (Dnr 2021-00445) was approved on February 12, 2021.
Consent to participate
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Written informed consent was obtained from the parents and children 15 years or older.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data Availability Statement
The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are not publicly available because it contains sensitive personal data and sharing it has not been approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority.