Dialog on the Roles of Knowledge, Research, Education and Politics in Improving Children's Lives

The Editors

Citation: The Editors. “Dialog on the Role of Knowledge, Research, Education and Politics in Improving Children's Lives.” Children, Youth and Environments 13(2), 2003. Retrieved [date] from http://colorado.edu/journals/cye.

Background

As part of our efforts to encourage discussion and debate of salient issues, we publish in this issue a dialog on questions regarding the roles of knowledge, research, education and politics in improving children's lives. This dialog initially resulted from a concern with the significance of obvious disparities between the physical world of children- in which they are increasingly spatially segregated along socioeconomic lines- and their virtual world, in which they are increasingly enmeshed in global relationships. The “Digital Divide” notwithstanding, via the worldwide web, children who live in poverty, from the slums of Nairobi to the favellas of Rio de Janeiro , increasingly have instant access to information and social contacts in wealthy parts of the world. At the same time, there are many children in affluent communities in the Northern countries who engage in email correspondence and joint distance learning with peers in low-income countries. Projects such GLOBE and Mountain Adventures, described elsewhere in this issue, are examples of such international networks.

What does it mean, we asked, to grow up in circumstances where there is such a pronounced and acute disconnect between the restricted physical world of children's daily lives and the wider world that is their mental frame of reference? What are the contradictory implications of globalization for the integration of diverse population groups among the younger generations and for democratic decision-making processes among them?

We posed these questions to Lea Dasberg and asked her for an essay that would address these questions. Dr. Dasberg is professor emerita in history and the philosophy of education, University of Amsterdam, and has written perceptively about what she has called “the infantalization” of youth, arguing for a “pedagogy of hope.” She declined our request for an article, but did so in a reflective letter that brings up important points concerning the roles of knowledge, research, education, and politics in the improvement of children's environments around the world. Based on her personal experience, she argues that where (global) “injustice does not originate by a lack of knowledge, it will not disappear by adding knowledge” but requires education and political action.

Dr. Dasberg's insightful comments re-focused our original questions, and we believe that her letter could open a much needed discussion of the roles of researchers and their relevance to the betterment of children's lives. Dr. Dasberg agreed to publication of her letter, which appears here. We invited reactions from several colleagues who responded thoughtfully to the critical questions Dr. Dasberg raises (see below). Their commentaries speak to the challenge that she presents to researchers concerning the usefulness of their work.

• If researchers have useful roles to play, what are these roles?
• What do researchers see as the important questions to ask? How do these questions address what practitioners “in the field” consider the most pressing needs?
• Are there convincing examples of how researchers have influenced planning and design practices, programs and policies for the better? Are there examples of how their recommendations have (unintentionally) produced negative outcomes?
• In what ways and to what extent are research agendas and funding priorities shaped by political and economic interests? By organizational incentive structures and career aspirations? By trenchant analysis of children's needs? By principled commitment to children's wellbeing?
• How can researchers meet traditional academic norms and also make contributions that are meaningful in “the real world”? What are inspiring examples of such work?

We hope that readers will feel motivated to ponder these and related questions and will add their voices to this discussion. We welcome further commentaries, which we will publish as contributions to a wider debate.

-- The Editors