EEA -DRAFT

Integrating Adult and Child Worlds: Children’s Work and Play in three WeD Ethiopia Research Sites

By Bethlehem Tekola

This paper builds on Samantha Punch[i]’s recent work (2003) about the lives of children in rural Bolivia. In this work, which is entitled Childhoods in the Majority World: Miniature Adults or Tribal Children? , Punch argues that children in the Majority world[ii] have mainly been perceived in relation to their work and that other aspects of their everyday lives like play tend to be ignored. She states two possible reasons for the concentration of research on majority world children’s work. First, the visibility of children’s work in this part of the world might obscure the importance of other aspects of their lives such as play. Second, researches may not recognize the majority world children’s localized forms of play, thereby not realizing that often they combine their work with play. Drawing on ethnographic data from rural Bolivia and applying the theoretical approaches of the minority group child and the tribal child (approaches developed within the ‘new sociology of childhood’) Punch argues that the majority world children integrate work, play and school, moving back and forth between child and adult-centered worlds. In this paper I will argue that what Punch has found out about rural Bolivia children is also supported by qualitative evidence from three sites[iii] (Kolfe in Addis Ababa, Kebele 08/09 in Shashemene and Korodegaga in Oromia Region) of the Well-being in Developing Countries ESRC Research Group’s Program (WeD[iv]) in Ethiopia. Based on mainly children’s perspectives, I will show that despite a significant workload and limited financial resources children in the three sites nonetheless combine their work and school with play. To pursue this objective the paper is divided into eight sections. It begins by discussing ‘pre-sociological’ thoughts about children’s work and then highlights the existing theoretical approaches to studying children’s work and play within the ‘new sociology of childhood’. Section three and four respectively presents methods of data collection and limitations of the study. Section five discusses the nature and distribution of children’s work in the three sites highlighting how it can be different or similar to that of adults. Section six explores the world of children’ play. Before presenting concluding remarks in section eight, the paper discusses how children in the urban are rural sites combine work and play in their day-to-day lives.

I. Background

During the last sixteen years the social study of children has undergone a fundamental change of perspective particularly in Europe and North America. Following the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of the child the ‘new sociology’ or sometimes called the ‘new social studies’ of childhood has developed as a distinct sub-discipline in early 1990’s (James and Prout, 1997) particularly in Europe. This ‘new’ paradigm brought three interrelated arguments: first, a reluctance to accept and/or a strong criticism of the developmental perspective; Second, a recognition of children as social actors and a social group in their own right and third, a new view of childhood as a structural form, that is, one that is basically related to “other generations” (Qvortrup, 2005: 338). Particularly relevant for the present paper is the challenge that has been put up against the developmental paradigm.

Writers from the ‘new sociology of childhood’ claim that although fostered within psychology, the developmental paradigm has for too long formed an implicit basis for most work on childhood. Central to the developmental mode of thought, they argue, are three elements: ‘naturalness’, ‘universality’ and ‘rationality’. In this paradigm human competence is essentially a function of age. The child is therefore seen as progressing from an immature child to mature adult, from simple to complex, from irrational to rational behavior, and from dependent childhood to autonomous adulthood (Kellett, Robinson and Burr 2004:30-1). All children everywhere are also seen as passing through the same stages of development, this view, thus, legitimizes the idea that childhood is a natural and universal phase of the human life cycle in which biological and psychological factors have a stronger role to play than social or cultural forces. One implication of this mode of thought, which is relevant for the present paper, is the view of childhood as a time free from work and centered on development, play and learning. By conceiving children as ‘passive’, ‘incomplete’ and ‘incompetent’ this paradigm perceives work as something, which a child cannot do, and therefore a non-child activity (Boyden, Ling and Myers, 1998). So increasingly play becomes associated with the status of childhood and work with adulthood:

Along the historical trajectory of Western societies the binarism of the work/play distinction became progressively mapped on to the adult/child dichotomy, both symptom and cause of the growing conceptual and practical separation between the social worlds of adults and children. (James et al., 1998: 90 quoted in Punch, 2003:278)

However, this view forms a remarkable contrast to the position of the child in the majority world where children’s contributions to the family economy in the form of work, support of the elderly or care taking for younger siblings is very significant. Thus, when examined from the vantage point of this paradigm the majority world children tend to be considered deviant and conceptualized as ‘miniature adults’ (Boyden et al., 1998). Additionally, recent research within the new sociology of childhood has shown that this standardized image of childhood is not even applicable to all children in the minority world. It has been shown that in the minority world there are children who contribute to their household by engaging in both productive and reproductive work (McKechnie et al., 2000; Mizen et al., 1999; Morrow, 1994). But despite these findings, the ideal that the majority world children have a life occupied by work (and thus as having ‘stolen childhoods’) and those of the minority world a life dedicated to play and school still persists. Therefore, studies about majority world children mainly focus on children’s work and that of the minority world on children’s play. Very few studies indicate that children in both worlds can combine the two arenas. Punch argues that in the majority world it has been recognized that many children combine work and school (Boyden, 1994; Woodhead, 1998) but very few studies have shown how they combine work and play (Katz, 1986, 1991) and virtually none have shown how they integrate work, play and school (except briefly in Nieuwenhuys, 1994: 53; Woodhead, 1998: 157).

II. The Work/Play and Adult/Child Splits: Theoretical Approaches in the New Sociology of Childhood

Within the new sociology of childhood James et al. (1998) identify four approaches to conceptualizing children and childhood: the social structural child, the socially constructed child, the minority group child and the tribal child. In the social structural approach childhood is seen as a structural category, an enduring feature of the social structure of all societies. Thus, while there is recognition that the conditions of childhood vary between times and places- as the cultural, social and economic characteristics of societies vary-childhood itself is seen a universal category. The minority group child, James et al. argue ‘is an embodiment of the empirical and politicized version of the social structural child’ (p.20). In this approach childhood is politicized and identified as an axis of difference (similar to gender, ‘race’ and so on), which confers advantage on some (adults) and disadvantage on others (children). Because this approach perceives children as similar to adults but more likely to be exploited it has been used to study children’s work mainly in the majority world (See for instance, Nieuwenhuys, 1994; Reynolds, 1991; Solberg, 1996). In contrast, the socially constructed child approach sees childhoods as varied both historically and culturally: ‘in many parts of the world a child’s age impinges very differently on local conceptualizations of children’s physical and social skills’ (James et al., 1998: 175 quoted in Punch: 280). Thus, social constructionists reject the existence of social structures which shape an identifiable childhood form and ‘are more likely to be of the view that children are not formed by natural and social forces but rather that they inhabit a world of meaning created by themselves and through their interaction with adults’ (Ibid quoted in Holloway and Valentine, 2000: 765). The Tribal child approach is considered as the empirical and potentially politicized version of the socially constructed child. The tribal (metaphorically indicating the emphasis put on the local) child approach conceives of children’s social worlds as real places with real meanings where children’s social action is structured through a system that is ‘unfamiliar’ to adults (Ibid). Because this approach perceives children as essentially different from adults it has been used to study children’s world of play mainly in the minority world (see for instance, James, 1995; Thorne, 1993).

James et al. indicate that the four approaches can overlap with each other and fluidity between them exists but movement between the minority group and the tribal child approaches is ‘relatively rare’ (1998: 217):

The ‘socially constructed’ child and the ‘tribal’ child often stand in a close relation, collude or experience elision in the approaches adopted in childhood studies. And an identical fluidity and potential for creativity exists between the ‘social structural’ child and the ‘minority group’ child. Movements in the other direction are, however, relatively rare. Thus the ‘social structural’ child and the ‘socially constructed’ child are locked in different, and even antagonistic, formulations, as are the ‘minority group’ child and the ‘tribal’ child (quoted in Ibid: 766).

In other words, approaches to the study of childhood are linked vertically on the diagram shown below in the process surpassing the voluntarism/determinism structure/agency, identity/difference and dichotomies. However, links are rarely made right to left, and thus the dichotomies global/local, universal/particular and continuity/change remain firmly intact.

Source: James et al (1998: 206 quoted in Holloway and Valentine: 766)

As I tried to indicate above, studies that focus on children’s work often use the minority group child approach and are therefore macro studies that aim to compare the relative social position of different children in different countries while studies on children’s play often use the tribal child approach and are often micro in nature. Drawing on qualitative data from the three WeD Ethiopia research sites, this article tries to contribute to the theoretical discussion about children’s play and work in three ways. First, by exploring the nature of children’s play in the three sites it tries to contribute to the limited knowledge about the majority world children’s play. Second, by discussing how children in the three sites manage to combine work with play and school it argues that the majority world children should not necessarily be perceived only in terms of their work from the minority group child approach. Third, by showing how children’s work can be both the same and different from that of adults and how impossible it is to completely separate children’s play culture from the social world of adults, it argues that the boundary between adult/child is very blurred and one can’t define childhood or adulthood based on work or play. The paper then suggests conceptualizing children both as similar and different from adults.

III. Methodology

This paper used qualitative data that was collected under two research components (Young Lives 1 and 2) of the Well-being in Developing Countries Research Program (WeD) in Ethiopia. Young Lives module 1 was about the ‘Cultural Construction of Childhood’ in the six sites (Denki, Kolfe, Korodegaga, Shashemene, Turufe Kecheme and Yetemen) of WeD Ethiopia. In this module parents, community leaders and educators were asked about the different aspects of children’s lives. Young Lives module 2 has focused on ‘the Personal Experience of Children’s Lives’. Here children from different age groups (small children, working /learning children, adolescents and very young adults) were asked about their lives. The present paper mainly employed qualitative evidence that was collected under the Young Lives module 2 so in the rest of this section I will focus on this module.

Participants:

In each of the three sites 32 children (16 female and 16 male) of different age and wealth statues were interviewed. In terms of age, small children (roughly 3-6 year-olds), working/learning children (roughly 7-10 years-olds), Adolescents (roughly 11-14 year-olds) and very young adults (15-19 year-olds) were included in the research. As much as possible effort was made to include children from destitute, poor, middle and rich households. Most of the respondents were also recruited from diary households (in each of the six sites there were roughly 12 households about whom researchers were writing monthly diary reports for a little more than a year). Female researchers interviewed female children and male researchers interviewed male children.

Methods of data collection:

In the study three types of data collection methods were employed: individual interviews, focus group discussions and observation. Children and parents/carers were interviewed about the different aspects of children’s lives. The questions were semi-structured so children and parents/carers could flexibly tell their stories. Focus group discussions were carried out with all age group of children except those who were roughly between 3 and 6 years old. Focus groups were made up of five children for each of the three age groups (i.e. working/learning children, adolescents and very young adults). Children who were interviewed individually were also participants in the focus group discussions. In fact often participants were selected based on these children’s choices. As much as possible effort was made to include children from different wealth status.

IV. Limitations of the study

The study has two major limitations that are related to data collection: first, limitation in terms of researchers’ skill and second, limitation of time.

Limitation with regards to researchers’ skill (the degree differs from one researcher to the other): often researchers have not used questions as prompts rather they read them out (used them as close ended questions). As a result, responses are very short; respondents didn’t get chance to raise issues which they want to discuss and researcher’s didn’t pursue interesting responses. For all these reasons, it is difficult to claim that the study was entirely an exploratory qualitative research. Moreover, instead of asking children for their perspectives some researchers tend to deduct information from carer’s responses.

Limitation of time: the research for this study was carried out within a very short period of time (12 days). This has put some limitations on the study. First, except those children who were also diary respondents, the rapport researchers could establish with children and parents/carers within this short period of time was very limited. Second, researchers were not able to include children from different socio-economic status as it was planned at the beginning of the research.

V. Children’s world of work

Drawing on children’s and adults’ perspectives as well as researchers’ observation reports in this section first, I will explore the nature and distribution of children’ work in the three sites and then see how children’s work can be both the same and different from that of adults. In both cases I will mainly focus on children’s household work.

In all the three sites children start to contribute to household tasks from a very early age. On this issue the perspectives of adults has shown significant difference from that of children and researchers’ observation reports. When asked at what age children should start work parents gave older ages than what is indicated by children and researchers’ observations. In Korodogaga most parents say girls and boys start work at age 8 and 10 respectively but according to researchers’ observations in some households children start to contribute to domestic work at age 4 (e.g. Jibiril Mohammed-age 4). At this age they contribute to household work by carrying errands, fetching water and collecting firewood. In both Kolfe and Shashemene the same difference is observed between the perspectives of adults and children.

The extent and nature of children’s domestic work differ mainly according to age, gender, wealth status of households, household composition and whether it is a rural or urban location. In all the three sites older siblings tend to do more work than their younger siblings. In other words, work responsibility increases, as children grow older. The complexity of children’s work also increases over time. In Korodegaga children’s responsibility with agricultural and animals tasks increases as they get older. Often at age 7 boys are engaged in very lightweight and physically easy farming and animal care activities like harvesting, collecting vegetables, weeding, scaring birds away from crops, looking after and feeding goats and sheep and keeping cattle from destroying crops?. At age 14 in addition to the above mentioned light farming and animal activities, they start to engage in activities which require physical strength like participating in community works (such as Food For Work), daily labour and loading vegetables on lorries. In the two urban sites children’s domestic tasks increase in responsibility and complexity, as they grow older.

Example from Kolfe:

Fraol is 10 years old and his brother, Muluken, is 14 years old. They both carry out domestic work. The former does washing, cleaning and running errands for approximately 2 hours a day. The latter engages in washing, cleaning and child care for approximately 3 hours a day. In addition to the increase in the amount of time spent on domestic work, Muluken’s responsibility shows increase in complexity. To look after younger siblings parents must be able to trust that their children will attend them constantly, not letting them get into any danger. Such a job thus requires responsibility and also physical strength- the older child must be able to physically lift up the younger sibling. This example also shows that as older siblings gain new responsibilities, they tend to pass down their old duties to younger siblings. In other words, if the household composition allows, there are certain jobs, which older siblings are not expected to perform. For instance, Muluken is not expected to carry errands unless in difficult circumstances. He passes this job to his younger sibling, Fraol.

Children’s accounts from all the three sites show that girls begin working earlier than boys and they participate more than boys in domestic work. However, it is difficult to say that children’s work is always gender-specific. In both urban and rural sites there is a clear adult division of household labour based on gender (for instance, domestic work is often the responsibility of women). But both in rural and urban areas it is not uncommon to see boys contributing to their household in terms of domestic chores. Children undertake traditional gender roles only when the household composition allows them to do so. For instance, in households where there are only male children it is not uncommon to see boys performing what is otherwise considered as ‘women’s work’. In addition, gender division of labour come to the scene often when children get older. At an early age most works that are performed by children are gender-neutral. Small children in the two urban areas perform light domestic work like cleaning house, washing dishes and clothes without gender difference. In the rural areas both boys and girls at their early age are engaged in collecting firewood, fetching water and herding animals.

Example from Kolfe:

The two tables below show how Fasil Eliku (15 years old) and his sister Rahel Eliku (14 years old) responded to the question- how they spent their time yesterday:

Fasil:

	What did s/he do?	Who with? How did they relate?	Where?
Getting up	Time of getting up. Who wakes? At 7, my mother	As he sleeps in the same room his mother wakes him up	Home
Between waking up and breakfast	Go to toilet, wash hands and faces	Alone	Home
Between breakfast and lunch	Go to school and learn	He learns the whole day	Selam Ber school
Between lunch and supper	Learning	Learns also in the afternoon	Selam Ber school
Between supper and bedtime	Time of going to bed? Watch TV and sleeps at 10:00	With the family whom he lives with	At home
During the night	Sleeps	Alone	On the bench (Salon) as he has no bed

Rahel:

	What did s/he do?	Who with? How did they relate?	Where?
Getting up	Time of getting up. Who wakes? At 7.00, my mother	Both my sister and brother	Home
Between waking up and breakfast	Clean house Make my bed Go to school	Alone	At home
Between breakfast and lunch	I am at school	With my friends	Ewuket Wogene
Between lunch and supper	I am at school till 9.30	With my friends	Ewuket Wogene
Between supper and bedtime	<