Bachelor of Education (Queensland University of Technology) Diploma of Teaching (Macquarie University) Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements… [609301]

YOUNG CHILDREN’S ACTIVE
CITIZENSHIP:
STORYTELLING, STORIES, AND
SOCIAL ACTIONS

Louise Gwenneth Phillips
Bachelor of Education (Queensland University of Technology)
Diploma of Teaching (Macquarie University)

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Centre for Learning Innovation
Faculty of Education
Queensland University of Technology
2010

i

Abstract
This thesis inquires into possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship as provoked
through a practice of social justice storytelling with one Prep aratory1 class of children aged
five to six years. The inquiry was practitioner -research, through a living educational theory
approach cultivating an interrelational view of existing with others in evolving proc esses of
creation. Ideas of young children‘s active citizenship were provoked and explored through
storytelling, by a storytelling teacher -researcher , a Prep class of children and their teacher.
The three major foci of the study were practice, narrative a nd action. A series of
storytelling workshops with a Prep class was the practice that was investigated . Each
workshop began with a story that made issues of social justice visible, followed by critical
discussion of the story, and small group activities to further explore the story. The focus on
narrative was based on the idea of story as a way knowing. Stories were used to explore
social jus tice issues with young children. Metanarratives of children and citizenship were
seen to influence possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship. Stories were
purposefully shared to provoke and promote young children‘s active citizenship through
socia l actions. It was these actions that were the third focus of the study.
Through action research, a social justice storytelling practice and the children‘s
responses to the stories were reflected on both in action and after. These reflections informed
and shaped storytelling practice. Learning in a practice of social justice storytelling is
explained through living th eories of social justice storytelling as pedagogy. Data of the
children‘s participation in the study were analysed to identify influences and possibilities for
young children‘s active citizenship creating a living theory of possibilities for young
children ‘s active citizenship.
Keywords
Active citizenship, action research, agency, children‘s citizenship, children‘s rights ,
counternarratives, early childhood education, living educational theory, metanarratives,
pedagogy, social actions, social change, socia l justice, storytelling, young children.

1 Preparatory is a full -time early education program offered in primary schools in Queens land, Australia. It
is non -compulsory .

ii
Table of Contents
Abstract ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………. i
Keywords ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………. i
List of Figures ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………. vi
List of Tables ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………….. vii
Statement of Original Authorship ………………………….. ………………………….. …………. viii

PROLOGUE ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………… 1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ………………………….. ………………………….. ………… 4
1.1 Research Problem: Social Justice Storytelling and Young Children as Active
Citizens ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………….. 4
1.2 Research Question and Objectives ………………………….. ………………………….. ……… 8
1.3 Design of Study ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …. 10
1.4 Thesis Outline ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …… 11
1.5 Notes on Reading this Thesis ………………………….. ………………………….. …………… 12

CHAPTER 2: CHILDREN, CITIZENSHIP AND PEDAGOGY …………………. 13
2.1 Ways of Viewing Children ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………. 13
2.1.1 Presociological Theories of Children ………………………….. …………………… 14
2.1.2 Sociological Theoretical Models of Children ………………………….. ……….. 18
2.2 Citizenship ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………… 22
2.2.1 Citizenship Definitions and Narratives ………………………….. ………………… 23
2.2.2 Citizenship Approaches and Spaces ………………………….. …………………….. 25
2.2.3 Children‘s Rights ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………….. 27
2.2.4 Children as Citizens? ………………………….. ………………………….. …………….. 30
2.2.5 Models of Children‘s Citizenship ………………………….. ……………………….. 34
2.3 Pedagogy ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………….. 39
2.3.1 Teaching and Learning Practices in Early Childhood Education …………. 40
2.3.2 Democracy in Education ………………………….. ………………………….. ……….. 45
2.3.3 Education for Social Change ………………………….. ………………………….. ….. 48
2.3.4 Aesthetic Encounters ………………………….. ………………………….. …………….. 50
2.3.5 Storytelling as a Way of Knowing ………………………….. ………………………. 52
2.3.6 Storytelling as Pedagogy ………………………….. ………………………….. ……….. 55
2.3.7 Social Justice Storytelling ………………………….. ………………………….. ……… 58
2.4 Making Connections Between Children, Citizenship and Pedagogy ………………. 61

CHAPTER 3: PRACTICE, NARRATIVE, AND ACTION …………………………. 63
3.1 Practice: A Living Educational Theory Approach to Practition er Research ……. 64
3.2 Narrative: Concepts of Metanarratives and Counternarratives ………………………. 68
3.3 Action: Arendt‘s Theory of Action ………………………….. ………………………….. …… 72
3.4 Core Values of the Study ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………… 74
3.5 Conclusion ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………… 77

iii

CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY ………………………….. ………………………….. ………. 79
4.1 Methodology: A Living Educational Theory Approach to Practitioner Research
………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………………. 79
4.2 Re search with Children ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………… 82
4.3 Research Design ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. … 83
4.4 Data Collection ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ….. 84
4.4.1 Story Transcripts and Workshop Plans ………………………….. ………………… 85
4.4.2 Data C ollection at Workshops ………………………….. ………………………….. .. 85
4.4.3 Follow -up Conversations with Teacher ………………………….. ……………….. 87
4.4.4 Follow -up Conversations with Children ………………………….. ………………. 88
4.4.5 Written Communications ………………………….. ………………………….. ………. 89
4.4.6 Reflective Journal ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………. 89
4.5 Analysis ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………. 90
4.5.1 Monitoring Learning and Action ………………………….. ………………………… 92
4.5.2 Transcribing and Organising Data ………………………….. ………………………. 93
4.5.3 Reading Data for Evidence ………………………….. ………………………….. ……. 94
4.5.4 Identifying Themes ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………. 94
4.5.5 Interpreting Data by Linking with Theory and Literature …………………… 95
4.5.6 Gener ating Evidence ………………………….. ………………………….. …………….. 96
4.6 Quality ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………… 96
4.6.1 Rigour ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …….. 96
4.6.2 Validity and Trustworthiness ………………………….. ………………………….. …. 97
4.7 Research Ethics ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …. 97
4.9 Thematic Analysis ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………… 101
4.9.1 Key Themes ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………. 101
4.9.2 Key Participants ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………. 103
4.10 Conclusion ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……. 106

CHAPTER 5: EMER GENT MOTIFS OF SOCIAL JUSTICE
STORYTELLING AS PEDAGOGY ………………………….. …………………………. 108
5.1 Motif One: Story -tailoring ………………………….. ………………………….. …………….. 109
5.1.1 The Tailor ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. 110
5.1.2 Tailoring Stories ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………. 111
5.1.3 Is There One Teller (Tailor) or Many? ………………………….. ………………. 116
5.1.4 Further Listening and Tailoring ………………………….. ………………………… 118
5.1.5 Closing Reflections on the Motif of Story -tailoring …………………………. 120
5.2 Motif Two: Spinning and Weaving ………………………….. ………………………….. …. 121
5.2.1 The Child Who was Poor and Good ………………………….. ………………….. 121
5.2.2 The Interconnectivity of Stories ………………………….. ………………………… 123
5.2.3 Identificati on of the Significance Common to the First Four Stories ….. 124
5.2.4 Mapping Actions Set in Motion ………………………….. ………………………… 126
5.2.5 Closing Reflections on the Motif of Spinning and Weaving
(Interconnectivity) ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………. 128
5.3 Motif Three: Freedom of Expression? ………………………….. …………………………. 129
5.3.1 The Freedom Bird ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………. 129
5.3.2 More Space for Children‘s Expression ………………………….. ………………. 130
5.3.3 Fre edom of Decision -making ………………………….. ………………………….. .. 132
5.3.4 Equality: Expression Expected from All ………………………….. …………….. 134
5.3.5 Closing Reflections on the Motif of Freedom of Expression …………….. 137

iv
5.4 Motif Fo ur: Walk in the Shoes of Another ………………………….. …………………… 138
5.4.1 The King and the Fisherman ………………………….. ………………………….. … 139
5.4.2 Engagement with the Concrete Other ………………………….. ………………… 141
5.4.3 Aesthetic Qualities of Storytell ing ………………………….. …………………….. 142
5.4.4 Sharing Tragedy ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………. 146
5.4.5 Compassion Leads to Action ………………………….. ………………………….. … 147
5.4.6 Closing Reflections on the Motif of Walk in the Shoes of Another ……. 149
5.5 Cluster -three: Bringing It All Together ………………………….. ………………………… 150
5.5.1 Two Blocks ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………….. 150
5.5.2 The GREED Machine and Two Rocks ………………………….. ………………. 151
5.6 Conclusion ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………. 155

CHAPTER 6: INFLUENCES ON POSSIBILITIES FOR YOUNG
CHILDREN’S ACTIVE CITIZENSHIP ………………………….. …………………… 158
6.1 Children‘s Citizenship: Children as Social Actors ………………………….. …………. 158
6.1.1 Sharing Inform ation with Children Viewed as Social Actors …………….. 159
6.1.2 Denmark Suggests a Social Action ………………………….. ……………………. 159
6.1.3 Children as Social Actors Versus Children as Dependent on Adults ….. 161
6.1.4 Child Initiated Versus Adult Initiated Social Action ………………………… 164
6.2 Children‘s Citizenship: Children as Political Actors ………………………….. …… 166
6.2.1 Adult -initiated Local interest: The Lonely Coxen‘s Fig-parrot Story ….. 167
6.2.2 Adult -initiated Action for Children‘s Citizenship in the Political Realm 170
6.2.3 Children‘s Participation in the Public Realm: Petition Formation ………. 172
6.3 Children‘s Citizenship: Children as Future Citizens ………………………….. ………. 176
6.3.1 Minister‘s Reply to the Petition ………………………….. ………………………… 177
6.3.2 Analysis of Why the Coxen‘s Fig -parrot Petition Was Not Tab led …….. 180
6.4 Different Ways of Viewing Children and Citizenship Participation ……………… 182
6.5 A Political Possibility for Young Children‘s Active Citizenship: Children as
Initiators and Adults as Res ponders ………………………….. ………………………….. …. 183

CHAPTER 7: RETRIBUTION, REBELLION, AND RESPONSIBILITY IN
YOUNG CHILDREN’S ACTIVE CITIZENSHIP ………………………….. …….. 185
7.1 Retribution in Young Children‘s Active Citizenship ………………………….. ……… 186
7.1.1 Retribution as Punishment: Burning the Factory Owner …………………… 187
7.1.2 Retribution as Punishment: Blending the Factory Owners ………………… 188
7.1.3 Retribution as Punishment: Arresting the Fac tory Owners ………………… 190
7.1.4 Retribution as Reciprocal Justice: Declan‘s Ideas ………………………….. .. 192
7.1.5 Why Retribution? What Does it Mean? ………………………….. ……………… 195
7.2 Rebellion in Young Children‘s Active Citizenship ………………………….. ……….. 196
7.2.1 No Rebellion ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………… 196
7.2.2 The Story told by Molly, Ella and Fergie ………………………….. …………… 198
7.2.3 Why Rebellion? What Does it Mean? ………………………….. ………………… 204
7.3 Responsibility in Young Children‘s Active Citizenship ………………………….. …. 205
7.3.1 Initiating a Meeting to Listen to Others ………………………….. ……………… 205
7.3.2 Organising Toy Collection ………………………….. ………………………….. …… 209
7.3.3 Concluding Displays of Children‘s Responsibility to Others …………….. 210
7.3.4 Why Responsibility? What Does it Mean? ………………………….. …………. 211
7.4 Possibilities for Young Children‘s Active Citizenship ………………………….. …… 212

v
CHAPTER 8: LIVING THEORIES, SIGNIFICANCE, AND IMPLICATIONS
………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………….. 215
8.1 A Living Theory of Social Justice Storytelling as Pedagogy ………………………. 215
8.2 A Living Theory of Po ssibilities for Young Children‘s Active Citizenship …… 218
8.2.1 Different Ways of Viewing Children Influence Young Children‘s Active
Citizenship ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……. 219
8.2.2 Retribution, Rebellion, and Responsib ility Have a Place and Purpose in
Possibilities for Young Children‘s Active Citizenship ………………………….. …. 220
8.2.3 Young Children Possess Complex Qualities as Active Citizens ………… 221
8.2.4 Young Children‘s Activ e Citizenship as Political and Authentically
Agentic ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………. 222
8.3 Limitations and Possibilities for Future Research ………………………….. …………. 225
8.4 Closing Reflections ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………. 226

REFERENCES ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……. 227
APPENDICES ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …….. 243
Appendix A: Table of Storytelling Workshops and Follow -up Conversations ……. 243
Appendix B – List of Activities in Each Workshop ………………………….. ……………. 244
Appendix C – Research Information Distributed to Participating Children‘s Families
………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………….. 245
Appendix D: Workshop One Story – The Freedom Bird (Thai folktale) …………….. 246
Appendix E: Workshop Two Story – Awi Usdi (Cherokee Story from North
Carolina) ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………….. 248
Appendix F: Workshop Three Story – The Lonely Coxen’s Fig -parrot ………………. 251
Appendix G: Workshop Four Story – Two Brothers (West African folktale) …….. 254
Appendix H: Workshop Six Story – Iqbal’s Story ………………………….. ……………… 260
Appendix I: Workshop Seven Story – Craig’s Story ………………………….. …………… 265
Appendix J: Week Eight St ory – The Rich Factory Owner And The Wise Old Woman
………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ……………………….. 268
Appendix K: Workshop Ten Story – Two Blocks ………………………….. ……………….. 270
Appendix L: Workshop 11 Story – The GREED Machine ………………………….. ……. 272
Appendix M: Workshop 12 Story – Two Rocks ………………………….. ………………….. 275

vi
List of Figures

Figure 1.1. Relational links between research question, objectives and subquestions. 9
Figure 3.1. Map of t he conceptual framework. ………………………….. …………………….. 64
Figure 4.1. Relationships between analytical processes and research subquestions. 91
Figure 5.1. The interconnecting story themes of the four stories in cluster -one. …. 124
Figure 5.2. Cluster -one: The social actions the stories set in motion. ………………… 126
Figure 5.3. Cluster -two: Interconnectivity of stories and social actions set in motion.
………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………….. 127
Figure 5.4. Cluster -three: Interconnectivity of themes from Cluster -one and Cluster –
two. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. ………………. 153
Figure 5.5. The study represented as three linked clusters. ………………………….. ….. 156
Figure 6.1 . Scan of letter sent to t he Minister for Environment and Multiculturalism.
………………………….. ………………………….. ………………………….. …………………….. 175
Figure 6.2. Letter of reply from the minister. ………………………….. …………………….. 180

vii
List of Tables
Table 4.1. Transcript codes…………………………………………………………… 94
Table 4.2. Summary of frequency of major themes in children‘s citizens hip practice per
data week…………………………………………………………………………………… .103
Table 4.3. Frequency of contributions by key participants according to identified themes
in children‘s citizenship practice……… …………………………………………… ..104
Table 5.1. Record of noted sympathetic responses to each story told in the study…… 140
Table 6.1. List of stories from which the children identified as having learned the
most… …………………………………………. ……………………………………………………… 169
Table 4.2 Summary of frequency of major themes in children‘s citizenship practice per
data week (A copy of Table 4.1 reproduced for ease of reference)…… …………….. 186

viii
Statement of Original Authorship

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet requirements for an
award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and belief,
the thesis contains no ma terial published or written by another person except where due reference
is made.

Signature: ________________________
Date: ________________________

ix
Acknowledgments

There are so many people who have contributed to the study behind the scenes to whom I am
truly grateful.

I appreciate the financial and resource support of the Faculty of Education, Queensland
University of Technology, which greatly assisted my doctoral study.

I appreciate my supervisors Professor Sue Grieshaber and Associate Professo r Felicity
McArdle from Queensland University of Technology, and Dr Julie Dunn from Griffith
University, who saw potential in my initial ideas for doctoral study and provided ongoing advice
and feedback throughout my candidature.

I appreciate the generos ity of Professor Jack Whitehead (Liverpool Hope University,
UK) and Dr Sarah Fletcher (Convenor of the British Educational Research Association'
Mentoring and Coaching Special Interest Group) who provided feedback with regard to living
educational theory o n early drafts of chapters, and Dr Caroline Josephs, storyteller and researcher
from Australia who provided feedback on storytelling in research. Each of these scholars
welcomed my inquiries and were exceptionally generous in their replies.

I appreciate t he teacher who saw value in my idea for a social justice storytelling
program and welcomed me into the Prep class that she was teaching at the time and the many
long conversations we had about the study.

I appreciate the children of the Prep class who wel comed me along with my stories,
activities, and interviews into their classroom, and shared with me many diverse ways of being
an active citizen.

I graciously appreciate all the extra parenting and housework that my partner contributed
and the sacrifices my children endured, as I spent so many hours occupied by this thesis. To all of
us it looked and felt like it would never end.

Finally, I appreciate all the encouragement and support provided by my family, friends
and colleagues. Their kind and wise wor ds were sustenance and motivation for the lengthy and
challenging task of doctoral study.

1 PROLOGUE
Inspiration for this study began with what to me was an allegory of colonisation: The Rabbits , a
picture book by John Marsden and Shaun Tan (1998). It was the year 2000, and there was much
discussion about reconciliation across many forums in Australia. Prime Minister John Howard
refused to apologise to the Stolen Generations, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
who had been removed from their families by successive Australian governments. The general
public expressed support for reconciliation through large -scale events, such as the Walk for
Reconciliation, Corroboree 2000 .
My son at age four found The Rabbits in our local library. It wasn‘t until we read the
story at home that I realised the powerful use of metaphor in this text . I interpreted the
symbolism of rabbits to represent a view of the white coloniser. The story is told from an
imagined perspective of a numbat (the colonis ed being) . Rabbits, like white colonisers , are an
introduced species to Australia with a population that grew extremely rapidly , from 24 rabbits in
1859 to two million rabbits in 1869 (Light, 2008). Based on my reading of The Rabbits and
discussion with Indigenous people, I inquired via the publisher as to what consultation the author
and illustrator had with Indigenous people for the development of the book.
Part of illustrator Shaun Tan‘s reply to the publisher offered the following explanation
of his conceptual isation of the book: ―The 'numbats' do not represent Aborigines, and the rabbits
are not white humans. They are two ways of being‖ (email via publisher 11 December, 2006).
This response propose d possibilities for diverse interpretations, yet I a long with others have
recognised parallels between events in The Rabbits and events of colonis ing the Indigenous
population of Australia .
From this perspective, I considered The Rabbits as the first picture book I had read that
portrayed the impact of colonis ation on Indigenous p eople s. I did not realise the atrocities of
colonis ation in Australian history until I was 18 , when I decided I wanted to know about the
experiences of Indigenous Australians throughout Australian history as I struggled with my own
cultural identity. From this realisation, I became acutely aware that Australian school education
offered a whitewashed version of Australian history. A more accurate account of Australian
history that openly exposed atrocities inflicted on Indigenous Australians i s now accessible to
young children through post -colonial texts such as The Rabbits . To me, The Rabbits
acknowledges shameful events in Australian history rather than pretends such incidents never
occurred, as so many accounts have done in the past.
I show ed The Rabbits to the preschool teacher at the community child care
organisation where I worked as a trainer and resource officer. The organisation had a strong
commitment to confronting social biases through implementation of an anti -bias curriculum
(Derm an-Sparks & The Anti -bias Task Force, 1989), which the teacher and I both supported.

2
Enthusiastic to engage in critical dialogue with her class of children aged four to five years, the
teacher shared The Rabbits with the class a number of times. Some days later, the teacher talked
to me about how one of the children‘s parents wanted her to stop reading The Rabbits to her son,
for he was having nightmares about his baby brother being stolen. A double page spread in the
book reads: ―…and stole our children‖ ( Marsden & Tan, 1998). The teacher did not want to stop
reading the book or stop the dialogue with the children about the issues that the book had raised,
yet she also wanted to respect the parent‘s wishes and attend to the child‘s fears. We thought
about i t together and decided that I would visit the class and tell a story to bring another
perspective to the practice of removing children from their families by previous Australian
governments. I told a story of a young Indigenous Australian woman named Elsie , which drew
from the childhood experiences of Aboriginal Australian women documented in the book
Murawina: Australian Women of High Achievement (Sykes, 1993).
On completing the story two boys aged five expressed their outrage at the acts of the
governme nt officials with these comments ―Put them in a brown bear cage‖ and, ―Hang them
upside down‖. I heard these comments as suggestions of violen ce or aggressi on. My training as
an early childhood teacher drove me to redirect such suggestions to more construc tive ideas . I
then asked the children, ―Well what do you do here when something unfair happens?‖ to which
one child replied, ―You say sorry‖. Then suddenly another boy leapt to his feet with urgency and
blurted out, ―John Howard did not say sorry‖. It seem ed he had identified a connection between
the story I had just told, possible discussions with his teacher and family , and a recurring feature
in the media that year. Prime Minister John Howard refused to apologise to Indigenous
Australians for the past go vernment policy of forced removal of children from their families,
contrary to the recommendation of the Bringing Them Home Report (Human Rights & Equal
Opportunity Commission, 1997). The boy continued with, ―Get John Howard to come here and
say sorry to t he Aborigines!‖ I was inspired by what I interpreted as passion ate motivation in a
child aged five to be political through social action to redress an injustice.
I wanted to support the children‘s enthusiasm to take action, but it was unlikely that
John Howard would visit their childcare centre. As a compromise I suggested that the children
could write letters to the government expressing their thoughts and feelings regarding the forced
removal of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families. This suggestion
had barely left my mouth when they all moved from the gathering on the carpet to the writing
area of the room. Their letters revealed their earnest desires to rectify the situation:
―The Government took Elsie. Elsie sends a letter to the gov ernment to say my mother didn‘t
die.‖
―Say sorry to the Aborigines. You‘re not very nice government ‘ cos you didn‘t say sorry to the
Aborigines .‖
―I took all the Aboriginal children (the sisters, brothers and Elsie) back to their mother. ‖

3 The n ext day we wrote a group letter to the government to accompany the individual
letters, which included the children‘s drawings and messages. The group decided collectively
upon the following words:
―To the Government,
Could you please say sorry to the Abor igines for stealing children from their families
and home, and invading their land? Please find enclosed our drawings and messages.
From…‖
Immediately on completing this script the children moved spontaneously towards the poster -size
letter and signed the ir names on the bottom. I was stunned that this needed no prompting; they
seemed proud to have their names associated with their social act of writing this letter to the
government.
There were three points in this encounter at which I marvelled at the en thusiasm and
capacity of young children to engage with social justice issues. The first point was when one
child identified a connection between the Stolen Generation story that I had shared and John
Howard‘s refusal to apologise for the practice of removi ng Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children from their families. The second point was when the whole group of children moved to
the writing table to write their letters to the government without explicit instructions. The third
point was when the chi ldren self -initiated signing their names on the group covering letter to the
government.
These moments have resonated with me for years, and I have shared this account at
many of my storytelling workshops and conference presentations with early childhood
professionals. My frequent sharing of this experience has been motivated by celebration, a
celebration of the capacity of young children to engage in dialogue on a social justice issue and
demonstrate self -motivation to redress the injustice. When able to undertake postgraduate
research some five years later, this encounter framed my doctoral study.

4
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
The experience described in the Prologue was such an inspiring moment in my storytelling and
teaching career that I wanted to know m ore in two domains. First, I wanted to know more about
the capacity of storytelling to motivate young children to be active citizens. Second, I wanted to
investigate further what young children‘s active citizenship could and might be. Accordingly,
this stu dy was designed to investigate relations between storytelling and young children‘s active
citizenship.
This chapter begins with a discussion of the research problem before building an
argument for the study, and explaining key terms as they are applied i n the study (1.1).
Following this the research questions and objectives are defined and details of how these are
addressed in the thesis are provided (1.2). An overview of the research design is then discussed
(1.3). The chapter concludes with a thesis out line (1.4) and explanations about reading the thesis
(1.5).
1.1 Research Problem: Social Justice Storytelling and Young Children as Active
Citizens
To define elements of the research problem of how social justice storytelling provokes and
promotes possibil ities for young children‘s active citizenship, key terms are unpacked to
extrapolate meaning as applied in this study and summarise previous research on children‘s
citizenship, social justice storytelling and related fields. How this study addresses the re search
problem is then defined before outlining the contributions that this doctoral study makes to
research on children‘s citizenship and social justice storytelling.
A notion of children‘s citizenship is a recently theorised concept. Contemporary socia l
theory has positioned children as competent and capable of being citizens of today whereas pre –
sociological views of children position them as citizens of the future (James, Jencks, & Prout,
1998). The United Nations (1989) Convention on the Rights of th e Child and its application in
social policy has incited current interest in the concept of children‘s citizenship. According to
Millei and Imre (2009) this interest assumes ―a legal -political link between citizenship and
rights‖ (p. 280). The meaning of c hildren‘s citizenship has been subject to much debate. Many
sociologists (e.g., Alderson, 2008b; Cockburn, 1998; James, Curtis & Birch, 2008; Jans, 2004;
Kulnych, 2001, Lister, 2007, 2008; Prout, 2001, 2002; Roche, 1999) have discussed what
children‘s citi zenship might be for young children and proposed various ways to view and
address it. Some (e.g., Millei & Imre, 2009) claim that the term children’s citizenship is
problematic since children do not have access to the rights commonly included in definition s of
citizenship, such as the freedom to own property or the right to vote. However, without clear
explanation of its purposes, the inclusion of the term children‘s citizenship in social policy runs
the risk of being a ―tokenistic discourse‖ (Millei & Imre , p. 281). The idea of children‘s

5 citizenship continues to be ambiguous, with various loose interpretations of what it can mean in
practice.
There has been little documentation and discussion of young children‘s engagement in
active citizenship. In the co ntext of this study, young children are defined as aged eight years and
younger. Some recent documented examples of young children‘s engagement in active
citizenship provide examples of adult consultation with young children on local issues. For
instance, the City of Port Phillip project Respecting Children as Citizens in Local Government
(MacNaughton & Smith, 2008; Smale, 2009) involved adults consulting with children to seek
their views on public spaces that they use. Moving beyond definitions of young ch ildren‘s active
citizenship consultation, such as that reported above, this doctoral study sought evidence of what
young children may initiate themselves as active citizens. This study contributes empirical data
to research on young children‘s active citiz enship through investigation of a pedagogical practice
of social justice storytelling exploring possibilities for young children as active citizens.
Citizenship is prefaced with the word active to explicitly articulate concern for
citizenship participati on and not passive citizenship, which implies simply being counted as a
citizen (Isin & Turner, 2002). Active citizenship refers to being a social agent expressing
opinions, making decisions and enacting social actions as an expression of civic responsibil ity.
This view of active citizenship contributes to the goal of a cohesive and just society as
envisioned in communitarian (Delanty, 2002) and global citizenship (J. Williams, 2002). Such an
approach to citizenship provides real scope for real action.
Embedded in the term active citizenship is the concept of agency, which in this study
refers to the ideas of Hannah Arendt (1958/1998), who insisted that to be agentic requires
initiating actions that begin new ideas with other people, not daily routine acti ons or actions that
we are told to do. These latter actions are viewed as either work or labour. The children in this
study were positioned as active citizens; the teacher and I engaged with the children as active
members of society with the potential to i nitiate action with others.
In a practice of social justice storytelling, storytelling is understood to be an oral art
form where a teller shares a story with a live audience through dynamic application of voice,
gesture and complementing props. Although storytelling may be widely recognised as an
effective way of engaging with young children, there has been little research about its practice in
education, as noted by Kuyvenhoven (2005) and Mello (1999) . Much of the existing research
about storytelling in early childhood education focuses on children as storytellers (e.g., Britsch,
1992; Dyson, 1994; Fox, 1983, 1997, 1998; Heath, 1983; Nicolopoulou, Scales, & Weintraub,
1994; Paley, 1981, 1991, 1993, 1997). Studies of social justice storytelling in early c hildhood
education appear to have been limited to the use of picture books (e.g., Hawkins, 2008;
Manifold, 2007) or the use of persona dolls to tell stories of diversity and marginalisation (e.g.,
MacNaughton & Davis, 2001).

6
Although the use of persona d olls has been found to be very effective in creating a
forum for opening dialogue on issues of race with young children (Brown, 2001), there was
limited attention to the art form of storytelling in this text. The use of persona dolls to tell stories
is a v ery specific, formulaic technique; and poses a risk of patronizing children through portrayal
of real concerns for children through a doll. There is also the possibility that the use of a doll to
express the issues of real people may be read as disrespectf ul to cultural groups that they intend
to represent (Md Nor, 2005). In comparison, this research project focuses on storytelling as a
specific art form and pedagogy that requires specific skills and abilities that can engage young
children in dialogue on i ssues of social justice through face -to-face interactions.
Understandings of social justice in this study draw from the work of Maxine Greene
(1995), who advocates awareness of the need for regard of the other , regardless of differences.
The term social j ustice storytelling then is used to describe storytelling that arouses awareness of
others‘ experiences of unfair treatment. The idea of social justice storytelling was employed by
Bell (2009, 2010) to explore race, racism and social justice with African A merican high school
students in New York. This study applied similar ideas in a context involving much younger
children.
One of the most influential social justice texts in early childhood education in the past
20 years has been Anti-bias curriculum: Tool s for empowering young children (Derman -Sparks
& The Anti -bias Task Force, 1989). This text launched an approach to early childhood education
referred to as anti-bias curriculum , which aims to celebrate diversity, build respect for diversity,
and promote d emocratic early childhood communities. The critical and transformative education
notions of ―the practice of freedom‖ espoused by Freire (1970, p. 15) were applied to the goals of
anti-bias curriculum . The aim is for each child, ―to construct a knowledgeab le, confident self –
identity; to develop comfortable, empathetic, and just interaction with diversity; and to develop
critical thinking and the skills for standing up for oneself and others in the face of injustice‖ (p.
ix). This publication had a far -reach ing impact on policy and practice in early childhood settings
in English speaking countries such as the UK, Australia, New Zealand, and the USA, and has
been used in tertiary courses for early childhood practitioners (Brown, 1998; Dau, 2001;
MacNaughton & Williams, 2009; Nuttall, 2003; Swadener & Marsh, 1995). Australian
commentators such as MacNaughton (2005) acknowledged that Derman -Sparks and the Anti –
bias Task Force advocated an activist stance that sought to recognise and confront discrimination
based on gender, race, ability, faith and/or sexuality. The vignette shared in the Prologue took
place at an early childhood setting that engaged in the practice of anti -bias curriculum.
According to Cannella and Viruru (2004) and Ryan and Grieshaber (2005), re al
recognition of bias, diversity and social justice issues in early childhood education has been
limited. These authors identified the prevailing adoption of developmentally appropriate practice
(DAP) (Bredekamp, 1987; Bredekamp & Copple, 1997) in early c hildhood education as a

7 significant contributing factor to limiting recognition of bias, diversity and social justice issues.
The guidelines of DAP are built upon notions of shared beliefs and agreed standards. The
critique of DAP by Lubeck (1998) suggeste d that DAP celebrates commonality and consensus as
opposed to difference and diversity. Grounded in the hierarchical theory of child development,
Williams (1994) argued that the DAP guidelines result in regulating children‘s learning to what
is considered normal, which cultivates a view of sameness. According to MacNaughton (2005),
developmentally appropriate practice has shaped the beliefs of teachers in the universal child as
an individual with western, white middle -class values, thus denying the diversit y of experience
across cultures and classes. Emphasis on the child as an individual can silence issues of social
justice (Cannella & Viruru, 2004), as the teacher sees only a version of the person in front of
them that is consistent with their own construc tion of the world. Differences in gender, race,
ethnicity, ability, faith, sexuality and/or class are secondary to the drive to teach all children
equally according to the standards of DAP. Collectively, these critiques identify that the
emphasis on common ality, consensus, normativity, western middle -class values and
individualism found in DAP cultivate a narrow view of ―one model fits all‖ for young children.
The critiques of developmentally appropriate practice draw from critical, postmodern,
poststruct uralist, and post -colonial theories, which have recently informed some research and
practice on social justice in early childhood education (Robinson & Jones Diaz, 2005) . For
example, children‘s understandings of gender (e.g., McNaughton, 1995, 2001a) and race (e.g.,
MacNaughton, 2001b; MacNaughton & Davis , 2001; Kaomea, 2000, 2003; Skattebol, 2003)
have been investigated through post -structuralist approaches. Such works have problematise d
power relations, validated diverse expressions of identity, and contributed solid groundwork for
investigatin g social justice issues in early childhood education.
The design of this st udy built upon the foundations of how social justice education has
been explored in early childhood education and the contemporary claim of young children as
active citizens. Storytelling was proposed and investigated as pedagogy that cultivates a forum
for young children to engage in open dialogue about social justice issues and practices of active
citizenship. From a critical theory perspective, this study recognised that metanarratives
(Lyotard, 1984) of children as developing and innocent, and adults as experienced, competent
protectors limit children‘s access to participation in society. As a storytelling teacher and
researcher, I see children as agentic. To enact this view, the young children in the study were
positioned as capable of engaging in dialo gue about social justice issues and participating in
society as active citizens.
The stories I shared as part of the study were about experiences of unfair treatment or
injustice. According to Stephens (1992), characteristic childhood stories in the west tend to be
built on certainties, such as happy -ever-after-endings, which support metanarratives of children
as innocent. Telling stories of unfair treatment or injustice was a conscious decision and an

8
attempt to counter metanarratives of childhood innoce nce and widen access for the children to
knowledge and participation as citizens. The stories were chosen to make visible the plights of
others. There were two objectives to the research: to explore social justice storytelling as
pedagogy that provokes and promotes young children‘s active citizenship and to investigate
possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship.
This inquiry makes three contributions to knowledge about social justice storytelling as
pedagogy and young children‘s active citizens hip. First, it contributes to the noticeable gap in
reflective research on social justice storytelling practices in early childhood education. Second, as
a storytelling teacher, I was positioned as provocateur, actively cultivating space for young
children ‘s discussion of social justice issues and active citizenship. This is significant because in
studies of social justice in early childhood education the researcher is typically positioned as
observer and investigator of unfair practices (e.g., Connolly, 19 98; Kaomea, 2000, 2003;
MacNaughton, 2001a; 2001b; MacNaughton & Davis, 2001; Skattebol, 2003). Through a
proactive approach I could adapt and explore various storytelling interventions for their capacity
to provoke young children‘s active citizenship. Thi rd, this study generates evidence of what
citizenship might be for young children when provided with space to initiate and engage in active
citizenship practices. The findings contribute evidence to a relatively new and emerging body of
research about youn g children‘s active citizenship. To date, what has largely been documented is
evidence of adults consulting with young children (e.g., MacNaughton & Smith, 2008; Smale,
2009).
1.2 Research Question and Objectives
With the Prologue as a starting point and based on the above discussion of the research problem,
the research question that shaped this inquiry became,
―What possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship can be provoked through a practice
of social justice storytelling?‖
This q uestion framed the exploration of my practice of telling social justice stories as well as
investigation into what young children‘s active citizenship might be. The inquiry sought
evidence of capacities and capabilities of a sample of young children as act ive citizens. My
practice of social justice storytelling was a purposeful intervention to cultivate interest and
motivation for young children to act as citizens. Figure 1.1 portrays the relational links between
the research question, the two objectives an d the six subquestions that underpinned the design a
study that would best address the research question.

9

Figure 1.1. Relational links between research question, objectives and subquestions.

10
In order to address objective one, ―To explore social justice storytelling as pedagogy that
provokes and promotes young children‘s active citizenship prac tice‖, I was guided by the
following subquestions:
1 a) What qualities of social justice storytelling support or provoke young children‘s
participation as active citizens?
1 b) How can adults and children work together to enable young children‘s active
citizenship ?
Responses to these questions are addressed through explanations of influences in my learning
through a practice of social justice storytelling (Chapter 5), as guided by a living educational
theory approach to practitioner research (Whitehead & McNiff, 20 06).
In order to address objective two, ―To investigate what young children‘s active
citizenship might be as provoked through social justice storytelling‖, the following questions
were posed:
2 a) How can adults and children work together to enable young chil dren‘s active
citizenship?
2 b) What proposals for social actions do young children offer?
2 c) What citizenship practices are available and possible for young children?
2 d) Which metanarratives and ideologies influence young children‘s active citizenship?
2 e) Who might young children be as active citizens?
These questions were addressed by explaining influences in my learning in possibilities of young
children‘s active citizenship. Questions 1 b) and 2 a) are common because investigation of how
adults and children can co llaborate in active citizenship was an inquiry of both objectives one
and two.
1.3 Design of Study
This study of social justice storytelling was approached as action research using a living
educational theory approach to practitioner research (Whitehead & McNiff, 2006). A social
justice storytelling program was designed and facilitated in collaboration with the class teacher
and involved one Prep class (children aged five to six years) in a public school in Brisbane,
Australia. The program lasted thirteen weeks with one 90 -minute workshop per week, which was
both video recorded and audio recorded. Each workshop began with a metaphorical folktale,
biographical story or self -crafted story that portrayed experiences of unfair treatment. After the
storytelling, the whole class discussed the story content in a sharing circle. The final part of the
workshop provided children with opportunities to respond to the story through related small
group activities.
The intention of this social justice storytelling progra m was to obtain detailed
understandings of how storytelling can provoke young children‘s active citizenship. It was not
my intention to formulate a social justice storytelling program as a model for replication in

11 schools and early childhood settings. Rath er it is hoped that detailed accounts of this program
provide understandings about children and pedagogical practices applicable to exploration of
social justice issues and citizenship practices with young children.
Action research was selected as the met hodology because of its organic, responsive
and reflective nature (Dick, 2000). As a practitioner (i.e., a storytelling teacher), action research
provided a methodology that positions the researcher within the study who initiates and responds
to the changi ng research situation. Through action research I could interject actions (e.g., stories)
to which the participants responded. Responses were collected from the children and teacher
throughout the study. I reflected on these in consultation with the teacher to devise subsequent
actions. The methodology of action research cultivated a collaborative research climate where all
participants (i.e., children, teacher and teacher aide) were valued as active contributors of ideas
and feedback. Welcoming ideas and fe edback as part of the recursive cycle of action research
created a responsive study where contributions of the participants steered the direction of the
study.
1.4 Thesis Outline
Over the course of this study, I struggled with the parameters of a traditi onal thesis format
because of its linearity and definitive formula. Although I am a great supporter of theses that
challenge the academy by presenting divergent formats, in the end I followed a traditional format
in the hope of wider acceptance amidst the academic audience. This study has multiple themes
that are linked in divergent ways, which makes a traditional thesis format problematic. In an
effort to follow a linear format, yet also acknowledge the multiplicity and interconnectivity of
elements of thi s study, diagrams have been included to aid clarity of understanding of the layers
and intersection of the multiple themes.
The context of the study established in this chapter has explained the research problem,
questions and objectives, and an overview of the research design. In Chapter 2, three major
categories of literature are discussed as they relate to the research problem: children, citizenship
and pedagogy. The social construct of children is discussed through varying ways of viewing
children. Wit hin the broader field of citizenship literature, definitions, approaches and spaces are
discussed, followed by a section examining theorising and practices of the rights of children and
children‘s citizenship. A review of the broader field of pedagogical l iterature includes early
childhood practices, democracy in education, and education for social change. This is followed
by discussion of aesthetic encounters, storytelling as a way of knowing, and storytelling as
pedagogy to build a case for social justice storytelling in early childhood education. In Chapter 3,
the theories that informed the research interests of practice, narrative, and action are explained.
These theories are a living educational theory approach to practitioner research (Whitehead,
1989; Whitehead & McNiff, 2006), the concepts of metanarratives (Lyotard, 1984) and
counternarratives (Lankshear & Peter, 1996), and the theory of action as espoused by Arendt

12
(1958/1998). The methodology is explicated in Chapter 4, defining application of a li ving
educational theory approach to practitioner research. This chapter also details other
methodological considerations, such as data collection, methods of analysis, quality, ethics, study
site, research participants, and key themes identified in the dat a. What happened in the study is
told in Chapter 5 through explanations of my learning in a practice of social justice storytelling
through accounts of children‘s participation in the social justice storytelling program, and my
reflections and amendments. In the next two chapters (6 and 7) I explore learning in possibilities
for young children‘s active citizenship. Chapter 6 contains exploration and discussion of the
influence of metanarratives on possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship. Possi bilities
for young children‘s active citizenship, and who young children might be as active citizens is
explored in Chapter 7 based on Arendt‘s proposal that people‘s actions and words (i.e., what they
say and do) reveal who they are. Finally, in Chapter 8 , I discuss the findings and implications for
storytelling and young children‘s active citizenship as living educational theories. The
significance of the findings and possible implications for those who engage with young children
in regard to citizenship practices are then discussed along with recommendations for further
research.
1.5 Notes on Reading this Thesis
Storytelling is a live experience. In this thesis I have included transcripts of the stories that I
shared, but this is only part of the story. L ike the accompanying video footage and audio
recordings they cannot capture the whole experience. Storytelling is an aesthetic encounter, so it
was the sensory and affective expression between teller and audience that were difficult to
capture. It is only through live experiences of storytelling that the nuances between teller and
listener can be seen, heard, and felt all at the same time. For these reasons I am acutely aware that
readers experience only part of the stories through transcripts. This has fru strated me in the
formation of this thesis, and I have pondered over different ways of presenting the stories. In the
end I included transcripts of the first five stories as recorded from workshops, with children‘s
contributions (Appendices C -G) to present evidence of the interaction between teller and
audience. Due to the lengthy nature of these first five storytelling transcripts, I included written
text of the story only for the second five stories (Appendices H -L).
Other points to note are my use of th e feminine pronoun and the terms child and
children . Throughout this thesis I use the feminine pronoun to imply both males and females. For
many hundreds of years the practice has been to use the male pronoun to refer to both genders;
this is a small effor t to bring balance to this practice. Collectively, I refer to the core participants
in this study (the Prep class of children aged between five and six years) as children. To the
school they are seen as students, but for the purposes of this study I refer to these participants as
children. I have deliberately done this, for this study examines how children are viewed in
possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship.

13 CHAPTER 2: CHILDREN, CITIZENSHIP AND PEDAGOGY
To conduct an inquiry into the possi bilities for young children‘s active citizenship as provoked
through social justice storytelling as pedagogy , it is necessary to examine three major fields of
literature: children, citizenship and pedagogy. These fields provide background knowledge that
informs and contextualises possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship in an educational
setting. A discussion of ways of viewing children (2.1) and how various views of children shape
notions of children‘s citizenship is followed by an examination of citizenship in relation to rights
and how ideas of citizenship have been theorised and practiced with young children (2.2).
Approaches to pedagogy (2.3) are then explored, beginning with broad fields of literature on
pedagogy, building to the specific focus of social justice storytelling. The chapter concludes by
making connections across these fields of literature concerning children, citizenship and
pedagogy (2.4).
2.1 Ways of Viewing Children
Children have been defined and understood in numerous w ays throughout history and across
cultures. The concept of childhood is a relatively recent construction (Aries, 1962; DeMause,
1976) and is generally agreed to have developed with the establishment of schooling for children
(Postman, 1982/1994; Luke, 1989 ). Theories of childhood inform the ways that people think
about children and speak and interact with them. James, Jencks and Prout (1998) refer to varying
concepts of childhood as theoretical models of childhood and identify two categories:
presociologica l and sociological.
The identification of presociological and sociological categories signalled a distinction
between earlier theories of children from disciplines other than sociology and contemporary
sociological theories. Presociological theories of ch ildren and childhood were drawn from
disciplines such as philosophy and psychology, which view children in terms of becoming
adults. Sociological theories of children and childhood developed over recent decades
acknowledge children as agentic in the here a nd now. These two distinctly different theoretical
views of children shape notions of children‘s citizenship as either a future status or as a current
status respectively.
In this section (2.1) presociological theories (2.1.1) and then sociological theor ies
(2.1.2) of children are examined. In this review of the literature, the varying views of children
within each category are examined critically by identifying how children, adults, learning and
participation are defined within each model in relation to possibilities for young children‘s active
citizenship .

14
2.1.1 Presociological Theories of Children
Five presociological theoretical models of child ren are discussed below with regard to how they
shape notions of children‘s citizenship. These models were id entified by James et al. (1998) as:
1. The evil child as shaped by the Christian Old Testament and theories of Hobbes
(1660/1996) .
2. The immanent child as shaped by Locke‘s (1690/1959) tabula rasa theory .
3. The innocent and individual child as shaped by the theories of Rousseau (1762/2007) .
4. The naturally developing child as shaped by the theories of Piaget (1929, 1932,
1950/2001, 1952, 1962) .
5. The unconscious child as shaped by theories of Freud (1923) .
While this is not a definitive list of the ways of v iewing children , these five major presociological
theories have informed and continue to inform conceptions about children and adult interactions
with children from the 1600s to the present . These models were shaped by theories that d o not
acknowledge the social context and ―have become part of conventional wisdom surrounding the
child‖ (James et al., p. 3). These theorie s continue to influence possibilities for children‘s
citizenship.
First, a theoretical model of children as evil rests on a view of chil dren as demonic,
which ―finds its lasting mythological foundation in the doctrine of Adamic original sin‖ (James
et al., 1998, p. 10). The Christian Old Testament and the theories of philosopher Thomas Hobbes
(1660/1996) shaped the thinking that children a re born evil, so adults beat the evil out through
discipline and control. Children are seen to be wilful with potential to disturb adult social order.
The classic novel Lord of the Flies (Golding, 1954) portrays a cautionary tale of children
descending to barbaric acts in the absence of adult discipline and control. Such a view of children
actively denies children exercising their agency.
Discipline and control are the emphasis of learning and participation for children
viewed as evil. The establishment of schools was informed by this way of thinking (Luke, 1989).
Children were disciplined in schools with the expectation that over time they would become
good adult citizens who followed the social order (James et al., 1998). Foucault (1977a) drew
parallels b etween the model of discipline and control established in prisons with that of schools
in modern industrialised society. He saw that both prisons and schools shared the mutual aim of
producing good citizens . According to Foucault (1977a), timetabling works to ―establish
rhythms, impose particular occupations [and] regulate the cycles of repetition‖ (p. 149). Through
timetabling in schools, children do not choose what, when and where they partake in activities
and this has the effect of reducing their capaci ty for democratic participation. Other factors, such
as the standardisation of curricular content and rules, also limit scope for children to make
decisions and express opinions. Together, these factors of discipline and control insist on
obedience and lim it children‘s agency as active citizens. A theoretical model of children as evil

15 positions them as in training to be what Foucault referred to as ―docile adult bodies‖ (p.135), that
is, good citizens who comply with the social order.
Second, a theoretical model of children as immanent views child ren as blank slate s
informed by the tabula rasa thesis espoused by John Locke (1690/1959) . Children are understood
as becoming or latent reasoners with reason being acquired with age. Based on this view, adults
have a higher status and exercise control over children by virtue of age, experience, and
knowledge. Schools have also served the purpose of filling the blank slate (or state of ignorance)
of each child with knowledge and experience (Luke, 1989). A view of ch ildren as immanent has
also influenced social policy in western societies, which has largely defined children and young
people as ―incompetents‖ (Morrow, 1994, p. 51). From this position, children are removed from
responsibility in that they do not vote or work. They are also seen as dependant, relying on adults
for care, protection and education. When viewed as immanent, children‘s participation as citizens
is impacted through their exclusion from various social practices and responsibilities. Standards
that do not consider individual consideration of competence (e.g., the requirement to be eighteen
to be eligible to vote in Australia) enforce many of these exclusions. A theoretical model of
children as immanent views children as not old or knowledgeable en ough to be citizens.
Third, a theoretical model of children as innocent is shaped by conceptions of children
as angelic, uncorrupted by the world, and naturally good, as espoused by Rousseau (1762/ 2007).
To Rousseau, children were born with a natural goo dness as expressed in his treatise on
education, Emile : ―Everything is good as it leaves the hands of the Author of things‖ (p. 37). On
the basis of this understanding, adults ―generate a desire to shelter children from the corrupt
surrounding world‖ (Dahlberg, Moss, & Pence, 1999, p. 45) . Adults maintain the natural
goodness of children by protecting them fr om violence and corruption through surveillance,
limitation and regulation. This construct has privileged the position of adult to withhold
knowledge in the name of protection and reinforces a notion of the child as ignorant or
immanent, in turn creating c hildren who feel vulnerable and disempowered (Cannella & Viruru,
2004; MacNaughton & Davis, 2001; Silin, 1995, 2000; Soto, 2005; Walkerdine, 1984). Adults
play an important role as gatekeepers, protecting children from information considered to o
difficult for them to handle emotionally (K. Marshall, 1997) . Silin (2000) suggested that this
perspective has led educators ―to underestimate what children know about the real world and to
overestimate their own ability to protect them from it ‖ (p. 259). Such a per spective limits
children‘s engagement with real world issues and active citizenship participation on these issues.
As Dahlberg et al. claimed, by protecting children from the world in which they exist adults do
not respect the rights and capabilities of ch ildren to seriously engage in the world.
The widespread impact of this theoretical model has produced a metanarrative of
children as innocent and vulnerable to corruption, and adults as protectors and knowledge
gatekeepers. The totalising effects of this metanarrative led to the formation of discourses of

16
protection (Cannella & Viruru, 2004; James et al., 2008; Silin, 1995, 2000) and discourses of
early childhood niceness (Stonehouse, 1994; Hard, 2005). Discourses of protection place
emphasis on protectio n rights in claims for children‘s rights (Archard, 1993; James et al., 2008)
(this is discussed further in section 2.2.3). Niceness has been, and continues to be, a strong theme
in early childhood practice with an example of such enacted niceness being the sharing of
sanitised stories with young children (Zipes, 1983, 1994). Adult -imposed restrictions on the
premise of protection can therefore shield children from participation as active citizens.
Fourth, a theoretical model of children as naturally develo ping was largely shaped by
empirical research conducted by Piaget (1929, 1932, 1950/2001, 1952, 1962), involving his own
children. This model brings together the naturalness of children (Rousseau, 1762/2007) and the
tabula rasa thesis (Locke, 1690/1959) to form the idea of inevitable maturation. Piaget
determined that there is a developmental pathway to intelligence that positions adults as
competent and supreme, and children as incomplete, incompetent, and irrational as a result of
their developing status (James et al., 1998). Learning and participation are understood in this
theoretical model as being guided and limited by universally accepted stages of development.
A major theoretical field to contribute to a view of children as developing is
development al psychology, which is well supported in practices of medicine, education and
government agencies (James et al., 1998). Support from such institutions has boosted hegemonic
positioning of developmental psychology. Some (e.g., MacNaughton, 2005) see develo pmental
psychology as having dominated early childhood education through DAP (Bredekamp, 1987;
Bredekamp & Copple, 1997; Copple & Bredekamp, 2009; NAEYC, 1987, 1997, 2009). For
example, MacNaughton (2005) applied the term ―regime of truth‖ coined by Foucau lt (1977b, p.
131) to describe the impact of DAP on early childhood education. By this MacNaughton
suggested that DAP has become a discourse, which the early childhood field accepts, which
makes it operate as true above other discourses of early childhood practice. By being positioned
as a ―regime of truth‖, DAP has been sanctioned and other practices have largely become
marginalised or silenced in early childhood education.
With a view of children as naturally developing strongly influencing early childho od
education, there are two significant impacts on possibilities for young children‘s active
citizenship. The first is the emphasis on individualism. Through DAP, each child is considered
individually against universal standards of developmental stages (Br edekamp, 1987, 1997, 2009;
NAEYC, 1987, 1997, 2009). This can limit young children‘s understanding of diverse others
(Cannella & Viruru, 2004; MacNaughton, 2005; Ryan & Grieshaber, 2005) as well as
possibilities for difference in the practice and experienc e of young children as citizens. The
second significant impact is that a view of children as naturally developing masks the extent to
which they are capable and take responsibility in their lives , because children are seen to be in
preparation for future p articipation, not agentic in the present . Adults are positioned as competent

17 and capable beings who understand, translate and interpret children's comments and actions
(Waksler, 1991) . This view of childr en is based on a deficit model, which positions children as
needing guidance . According to Lansdown (2005), a deficit model makes much of children‘s
agency invisible. This future orientation limits the possibilities for young children‘s active
citizenship with in the wider community in the here and now to be ing determined by adults
according to defined developmental stages .
Fifth, a theoretical model of children as unconscious was shaped by psycho analytic
theoris ts, such as Freud (1923) . To Freud, children were uncontrolled and impulsive . Children
viewed acc ording to this theoretical model are highly ego -focused; consciousness and therefore
consideration of others is minimal. Emphasis is on children‘s unconscious instincts in their
learning and participation. Like a theoretical model of children as naturally developing,
recognition of the unconscious behaviours of children also view s them as becoming, with the
emphasis on becoming rational (James et al., 1998). Adults have the role of manag ing and
support ing children‘s free expressions of instincts and impulse s with the purpose of integratin g
them into the adult world as proposed by A.S. Neill in his progressivist approach to education
(D. Carr, 1991) .
This view of children as impulsive and/or irrational has been identified by Arneil
(2002), Kulnych (2001), and Stasiulis (2002) as an argument used against children‘s recognition
and participation as citizens. To counter this argument, Kulnych (2001) proposed a
conceptualisation of children‘s citizenship that acknowledges and welcomes children‘s
instinctive and impulsive expressions of anxiety, incoherence and disorder. She argued that
welcoming this difference in communication styles would aid the inclusion of children‘s
participation in public debates. Rather than viewing impulsivity as a deficit to rationalit y,
Kulnych‘s proposal positions impulsivity as another means of expression. Welcoming
impulsivity, Kulnych suggested, has the potential for greater inclusion of children as citizens in
the public realm. Canadian artist Darren O‘Donnell (2007) recently expl ored ways of cultivating
civic engagement for children that are not usually available to them. One project Haircuts by
Children , involved children aged ten cutting the hair of adults. O‘Donnell expected anarchic
scenes of hair flying everywhere, yet in pra ctice he found the children took the responsibility
seriously. However, O‘Donnell and the children experienced media coverage of the project that
manipulated and staged images of chaotic impulsivity. O‘Donnell deconstructed the media
coverage with the part icipating children, who acknowledged that both they and reality were
manipulated. Such an example provides evidence of the prevalence of views of children as
negatively impulsive, impinging perceptions of possibilities for children‘s civic engagement.
Each of the above presociological theoretical models views children as citizens of the
future. Such views continue to shape both social and educational practices with children (James
et al., 1998). Understanding how these ways of viewing children shape their positioning and

18
participation in society enables recognition of influential thinking on possibilities for young
children‘s active citizenship participation. This contributes significant foundational knowledge to
an inquiry into possibilities for young chi ldren‘s active citizenship.
2.1.2 Sociological Theoretical Models of Children
According to James et al. (1998), there has been rapidly growing sociological interest and
attention to children and childhood in recent times . As a result there has been a shif t away from
the influence of the individualistic doctrine of presociological theories . Sociological
understandings acknowledge children as agentic with ―social, political and economic status as
contemporary subjects‖ (James et al., 1998. p. 26), that is, a s citizens of today.
Sociali sation from a sociological perspective is seen as ―a process of appropriation,
reinvention, and reproduction ‖ in which ―children negotiate, share and create culture with adults
and each other ‖ (Corsaro, 2005, p. 18) . This diffe rs from presociological theorie s and early
sociological theories (e.g., Ritchie & Kollar, 1964), which view sociali sation as a matter of
adaptation and internalisation. Past sociological theories of socialisation position the child as
passive in a process of becomi ng socialised to an adult world. Recent sociological theories of
children view them as competent and capable social actors.
To understand how recently formed theoretical models of children in sociology have
enabled children to be viewed as citiz ens of today, four major models identified by James et al.
(1998) are discussed:
1. The s ocially constructed child.
2. The tribal child.
3. The m inority group child .
4. The s ocial-structural child.
Acknowledgment of c hildren‘s agency and social struc tures are common to each of these
models, yet they are conceptualised in differ ent ways. The four models provide greater scope for
the inclusion of children‘s voice s in research and practice. According to James and Prout (1995),
by viewing ―children as com petent social actors – we can learn more about the ways in which
‗society‘ and ‗social structure‘ shape social experiences and are themselves refashioned through
the social action of members‖ (p. 78). On the basis of this understanding, sociological theori es
enable the impact of society and social structures to be examined in theoretical models of
children. These four sociological models of children are discussed in relation to possibilities for
young children‘s active citizenship. In addition , a notion of children as political is proposed for
its capacity to support young children‘s active citizenship within the wider community.
First, a theoretical model of children as socially constructed acknowledges diversity in
relation to the social, political, hist orical and moral context of each child. The idea of children as
socially constructed draws from social constructionism. Social constructionist research about
children suspends beliefs of taken -for-granted meanings about children (James et al., 1998). The

19 concept of a universal child as proposed in each of the presociological theoretical models of
children is not accepted. Instead, plurality and diversity are welcomed. An understanding of
children as socially constructed also enables the recognition of multi ple discourses contribut ing
to a collective ap preciation of the condition of childhood . Childhood is understood as historically
contingent and unfixed .
In social constructionism, learning and participation for children is understood to be
influenced by c ontext. Children construct meaning agentically through interactions with others,
including peers and/or adults. Adults question, analyse, and reflect on the influence of social
constructions of children‘s learning and participation. Such a view of children enables
identification of social structures that shape the possibilities for children‘s citizenship. In
addition, a view of children as socially constructed offers scope for diverse conceptualisations of
children‘s citizenship according to context.
Secon d, a theoretical model of children as tribal celebrates children‘s difference from
adults by recognising that children possess a culture that is distinct from adult culture (James et
al., 1998). In learning and participation, children are seen as practisin g their own culture and
adults appreciate children‘s views, difference, and autonomy. Children are understood as
inhabiting an autonomous world separate from adults, where children have their own rules and
agendas. The reference to children as ― digital nat ives‖ by Prensky (2001) suggests a view of
children as tribal; he acknowledged the ease that many children have in using digital technology.
According to Prensky, children‘s preferences for many of the features of digital technology are
seen as different from those of adults, who he referred to as ―digital immigran ts‖. Research that
views children as tribal ―offers potential for resistance to the no rmali sing effects of age
hierarchies, educational policies, socialis ation theories and child rearing practices ‖ (James et al.,
p. 215). Children‘s stories are honoured and located in a certain place and time with a strong
sense of self -determinacy. For example, the research of Opie and Opie (1977) on children‘s
rituals and rules in school playgrounds recognised sp ecific practices that children devise.
Viewing children as tribal recognises and honours children‘s views, difference, and autonomy in
citizenship.
A view of children as tribal has been critiqued by Morrow and Richards (2002) who
claim that such a view positions children as unknowable to adults. They argued that research
with children viewed this way can be potentially m isleading. This is especially so if adult
researchers suggest that they have suspended their adult status to enter into the world of children
to claim knowledge of children‘s ways of being. A theoretical model of children as tribal offers
potential to fore ground and celebrate differences of citizenship for children. Yet as Morrow and
Richards argued, a child‘s account can never be presented unadulterated as the lenses of adult
researchers invariably interfere.

20
Third, a theoretical model of children as a m inority group recognises that children as a
group are positioned as powerless, disadvantaged and oppressed (Oakley, 1994). Children in this
model are viewed as deserving the same rights as adults, yet they rarely receive these rights. In
contrast to the th eoretical model of children as tribal where children‘s differences to adults are
celebrated, this model recognises many of children‘s differences to adults as imposed
disadvantages. Oakley proposed that children are a minority group in that they are positi oned as
less than adults with terms such as ―childish‖ and ―childlike‖ often used in derogatory ways.
Further, children‘s minority group status is presented through adults making decisions for them
on the basis of the claim that it is ‗in their best intere sts‘ (Alderson, 1994; Coady, 1996;
Lansdown, 1994; Oakley). Adults, who view children as a minority group, act as advocates for
(or ideally with) children by arguing that children should have the same rights to citizenship
participation as adults.
A theo retical model of children as a minority group draws from critical theory. Critical
theorists such as Giroux (1983) viewed the social demarcation of childhood as justifying ongoing
adult domination of children. A claim by Cannella and Viruru (2004) that chi ldren are colonised
through acknowledgment of adult manipulation of children is such a view. Critical pedagogy
(e.g., Freire, 1970, 1973, 1974, 1985, 1998; Giroux, 1983, 1988, 2003) draws from this
understanding of children in that it endeavours to aid stu dents to question and challenge practices
of domination.
If children are viewed as a minority group their citizenship participation is recognised
as limited and constrained by social constructions. Such a view provides a strong case for
claiming citizens hip rights for children. However, James et al. (1998) argue that this view groups
children together, proposing uniformity while ignoring variations, in the same way cross -cultural
critics of the feminist movement saw claims for women‘s rights. A view of ch ildren as a
minority group presents a strong case for claiming citizenship rights for children; however, social
and cultural variations may be invariably glossed over by grouping all children together.
Fourth, a theoretical model of children as a collect ive social structural entity recognises
that children are a feature of all social worlds; though they may vary from society to society,
within each particular society they are uniform (James et al., 1998). This model views childhood
as a social phenomenon and promotes the commonalities of children and childhood across
differing societies. Children are understood as a body of social actors and as citizens with needs
and rights. They are seen as a constant group, or universal category, with acknowledgment of the
influence of particular social structures on particular groups of children. This model differs from
the theoretical model of children as socially constructed in that it recognises that there are certain
universal characteristics in the structures of al l societies. Recognisable components in social
structures in different places and different times are seen as common to all (James et al.). For
example, childhood is a social structure that is experienced differently from adolescence and

21 adulthood. A view of children as a social structural entity is based on constancy of common
elements for all children as opposed to a view of children as socially constructed, which is based
on contingency of socio -cultural contexts. The identification of universal characte ristics across
different societies offers scope for the development of frameworks or models of children‘s
citizenship that could be applied in different societies regardless of socio -cultural contextual
circumstances. Recognition of the generalisable categ ory of children and childhood is perhaps
why a notion of children‘s citizenship has emerged as a distinguished category of citizenship.
Another way of viewing children is as political. James et al. (1998) did not define
children as political as a model in its own right. This study argues a case for viewing young
children as active citizens with agency to be political through their participation in questioning
normalised practices and taking action to redress unjust practices. A notion of children as
politi cal, like the four previously discussed sociological theoretical models, acknowledges
children as agentic. However, a view of children as political is particularly pertinent to
citizenship in that it emphasises access and participation in the public sphere . This is based on
citizenship being lived with others (Lister, 2007). The term political draws from the Greek root
of polis, which means a public sphere where members engage in activities of common interest
(Turner, 1993). An intention of this study was t o enable young children‘s participation as citizens
in the public sphere.
A view of children as political is not concerned with government and party politics that
large studies such as those undertaken by Hess and Torney (2006) in the US in the late 1960s and
Connell (1971) in Australia examined. These political socialisation studies interviewed children
with a view of becoming political on matters such as political party affiliations, government
structure and voting. In contrast to these studies, this stud y views young children as political
now. Although research by Connell into children‘s development of political beliefs was based on
children becoming political, he found that children‘s constructions of beliefs and understandings
were idiosyncratic. Childr en were seen to engage in creative conceptualising, which Connell
claimed many studies of children‘s political beliefs had failed to recognis e through preoccupation
with political socialis ation. More recently, Kulnych (2001) proposed children be viewed as
possessing political identities. She proposed that political identities can be supported through
children‘s access to the public sphere and acceptance of their expressions of resistant and
disorderly forms of participation (discussed further in section 2.2 .5). A view of young children as
political welcomes their participation as active citizens in the public sphere.
The acknowledgment of children as agentic is common to each of the sociological
theoretical models of children discussed and has grown to have a stronger presence in social
policy, education and research. There is an attractive quality to this concept from an ethical
position as it presents as empowering children. However, Kulnych (2001) claimed that talk of
children‘s participatory rights (or a gency) is often used to exaggerate children‘s status, thus

22
obscuring the actuality of children‘s experiences of authorship. Gallacher and Gallagher (2008)
also suggested that recent sociological research that proclaims to acknowledge children‘s agency
may actually risk disregarding children‘s agency and autonomy. This may occur through
adherence to methods that are determined by adults to be agentic for children (e.g., drawing,
storytelling and story writing) yet are blind to ways children choose to be agen tic. These critiques
provide caution to exaggerated and romanticised claims of children‘s agency.
All of the presociological and sociological theoretical models of children discussed can
shape young children‘s active citizenship participation. The sociali sation and acculturation of
those engaging with children and the context within which the children exist influences the way
children are viewed. Many of these different ways of viewing children influenced children‘s
participation in this study. Recognising and understanding theoretical models of children
provided solid groundwork for investigating possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship
as provoked through a practice of social justice storytelling. The influence of certain theories on
the poss ibilities for young children‘s active citizenship could be identified. Some theories of
children were noted as contributing to metanarratives that espouse oppressive, exclusionary, and
totalising effects on how children are viewed in society thus impacting possibilities for young
children‘s active citizenship. Other theories contribute counternarratives that open doors for
diverse possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship. Collectively, an understanding of
varying theories of children enabled an alysis of influential thinking and shaping of possibilities
for young children‘s active citizenship.
2.2 Citizenship
Theoretical models of children shape theories, ideas, models and practice of children‘s
citizenship. The term citizenship has various mean ings across different disciplines. Recent
discussion of notions of children‘s citizenship has emerged from sociological views of
citizenship. To investigate notions of children‘s citizenship, definitions of citizenship and
elements of citizenship require e xamination in relation to the experiences of children and the
conditions of childhood.
In this section I begin with citizenship definitions and narratives (2.2.1), followed by
citizenship approaches and spaces (2.2.2) to provide a bas is for understanding the field of
citizenship . The emergence of a notion of children‘s citizenship is provided through a discussion
of children‘s rights (2.2.3). Recent notions of children as citizens (2.2.4) are then theorised. This
is followed by critiques of proposed models of children‘s citizenship (2.2.5) and examples of
practice of children‘s citizenship (2.2.6) with regard to possibilities for young children‘s active
citizenship. Collectively, this provides a solid base for understanding conceptualisations of
children‘s citizenship with which empirical data in this study of young children‘s active
citizenship can be analysed .

23 2.2.1 Citizenship Definitions and Narratives
Citizenship is defined in different ways in different disciplines. Legal, social science,
sociological , and socio -political definitions, along with a metanarrative of good citizen , are
explored below for their relevance to possibilities for children‘s citizenship. In addition , the
relationship between democracy and citizenship is discussed as relevant to c hildren‘s citizenship
rights.
One view of citizenship is simply as a legal status of nation -state membership , which is
granted through birthright or naturali sation ( Faulks, 1998; R. Gilbert, 1996). From this
understanding citizens are viewed as loyal to t he state and its institutions. The only active
participation permitted in this view is that of the legislated convention of voting. This is a narrow
view of citizenship that overemphasi ses the purpose of legislation in defining the scope of
citizenship. In terms of children‘s citizenship this view is problematic, as children are recognis ed
as citizens (through birthright), yet they cannot participate as they do not have the right to vote.
The notion of being loyal to the state as a faithful subject was form ed by the ideas of
Rousseau (1762/1968) about citizenship as devotion to civic duty and obedience to laws
(Dagger, 1997). These ideas have become known as hegemonic ideology, a metanarrative of
the good citizen , whereby citizens work hard and obey the laws (Batstone & Mendieta,
1999) . For example, s uch an ideology has had a strong presence in children‘s stories with
Tatar (2003) not ing that the fairytales of Wilhelm Grimm are imbued with this message, as
he manipulated the tales he heard with the values of the time. These lyrics that were sung by
school children in Germany at that time typified such values : ―Hard work and obedience:
Those are the qualities to which all good citizens must aspire‖ ( Tatar, p. 29). With Grimms‘
fairytales permeating Anglophone p opular culture, Stephens and McCallum (1998) claimed
that these tales contribute to the cultivation of metanarratives of the values that they espouse.
Whalley ( 1996) concurred that the equation of obedience with good citizenship has
continued to be a stron g message in children‘s stories. The ideology of the good citizen has
had a strong impact on narratives and discourses for both adults and children. For example,
the recent media portrayal of terrorists as assailants of extreme evil is seen to attack the
metanarrative of good citizen (Seymour, 2006). The metanarrative of good citizen continues
to bear weight in discussion and practice of citizenship.
In social science, citizenship is defined ―as passive and active membership of
individuals in a nation stat e with certain universalistic rights and obligations at a specified level
of equality‖ (Janoski, 1998, p. 9) . This definition acknowledges the establishment of personhood
within a geographical territory along with the experience of the passive right to exi stence and the
active right to influence politics. It acknowledges certain universal rights of, and obligations to,
all citizens of a nation state with emphasis on equality. Contemporary citizenship theory contests
and broadens this social science definiti on to include the concept that it is ―a social process

24
through which individuals and social groups engage in claiming, expanding or losing rights‖
(Isin & Turner, 2002, p. 4) . This is a sociologically informed definition of citizenship, which
shifts the em phasis away from legal rules to focus on rights, socio -political practice, meanings,
and identities. Citizenship viewed as a socio -political practice differs from a social science
definition in that it is a lived citizenship, thus proposing agency through active participation
(Lister, 2007) as opposed to passive membership.
The emphasis on rights in sociological definitions of citizenship draws from what is
understood as the first sociological theory of citizenship: Citizenship and social class by
Marshall (1950). In this essay, Marshall defined a typology of citizenship rights for citizens in a
developmental order, that was balanced against obligations. The categories of rights included
civil, political and social rights. To Marshall, civil rights were rig hts for individual freedom or
legal rights. Freedom of speech, the right to own property, the right to justice and the right to
work in your choice of profession were classified as civil rights as exercised through the legal
system. Political rights were d efined by Marshall as the right to exercise political participation in
institutions, such as parliament and local councils. Social rights were defined as the right to
economic welfare and security provided through institutions, such as educational systems and
social services. Based on these definitions of civil, political and social rights, children only have
access to social rights. In this regard it is worth noting that Marshall viewed children and young
people as future citizens and not as citizens of t oday. Children‘s citizenship rights are discussed
further in the forthcoming section on children‘s rights (2.2.3) .
If children‘s citizenship is viewed as a process of expanding rights, a socio -political
definition of citizenship seems to offer the greate st scope for the inclusion of children as citizens
of today. Turner (1993) acknowledged that a socio -political definition of citizenship ―places the
concept squarely in the debate of inequality… because citizenship is necessarily and inevitably
bound up wi th the problem of unequal distribution of resources in society‖ (p. 32). A socio –
political definition of citizenship welcomes acknowledgment and redress of the inequality that
children experience in society due to their reduced access to resources.
Democ racy is considered a twin term to citizenship as it is understood as the
participatory practice of citizens (Loenan, 1997). To Loenan, democracy and citizenship are
mutually reinforcing in that democracy as a process is a means of enabling citizenship and the
participation of citizens sustains democracy. Derived from the Ancient Greek words demos for
people and kratos for rule or strength, democracy has evolved to have many meanings in many
contexts (Dahl, 2000) . According to Young (2000), political theoris ts acclaim the idea of
democracy for how it provides greater voice and participation for the lives of active citizens.
Young also acknowledged that many believe ―democracy is the best political form for restraining
rulers from the abuses of power‖ (p. 17). However, many countries across the globe claim to be
democratic nations, yet there are numerous examples of abuse of power. For example, the USA,

25 claimed to be the beacon of democracy, has overthrown democratic governments in Chile, Iran,
and Guatemala ag ainst the will of the people (Chomsky, 2006). Although democracy is
understood to support the participation of citizens, and the term is warmly welcomed in rhetoric ,
in practice the acts of a nation can be at odds with such rhetoric.
Two staple principles of democracy are: all members of society have access to power
and all enjoy universally recognis ed liberties and freedoms, such as freedom of speech and
freedom of choice (Dahl, Shapiro, & Cheibub, 2003) . These principles are applicable to a claim
for chi ldren‘s citizenship rights. As acknowledged above, c hildren do not hav e the same access
to universally recognised liberties and freedoms as adults through their reduced access to rights
and resources (Kulnych, 2001; Lister, 2007). Based on this deficit, at tention to principles of
democracy is required to enact a socio -political definition of children‘s citizenship.
The above discussion of different definitions of citizenship reveals a socio -political
definition to have greatest relevance to a claim for ch ildren‘s citizenship, in that emphasis is
placed on expanding rights. Democracy was recognised as enabling civil, political, and social
rights of citizenship. The following section discusses how a socio -political definition operates in
different citizensh ip approaches and spaces.
2.2.2 Citizenship Approaches and Spaces
Citizenship can be approached and experienced in different ways. This section discusses four
approaches to citizenship defined in political theory and their potential relevance to possibilit ies
for young children‘s active citizenship. A recent proposal by Arvanitakis (2008) of citizenship
experiences as heterogeneous, fluid spaces offers further relevance and possibilities for young
children‘s active citizenship.
From modern political theori es, the most widely recognised approaches to citizenship
to have emerged are liberal, republican, communitarian, and cosmopolitan or global citizenship
(Isin & Turner, 2002). A rights -based view of citizenship is couched within liberalism with the
primary concern being individual rights. A liberal approach to citizenship emerged from theories
of John Locke (1690) and John Stuart Mill (1869/1999) on individuality, self -interest and private
property (Schuck, 2002). Central to liberal citizenship practice are the right to own property and
the right to vote. To Millei and Imre (2009), a liberal approach to citizenship is problematic for
children because children cannot own property or vote. A republican approach to citizenship has
a solid commitment to civic vir tue for nationhood, lending itself to strong patriotic identity and
fundamentalism (Dagger, 2002; Honohan, 2002; Maynor, 2003; Pettit, 1997) . The main
emphasis on nationhood in republicanism defines citizenship as loyalty to the nation -state.
Nationhood an d nation -state were not research concerns of this study. The approach to
citizenship that offered greatest relevance to young children‘s active citizenship in response to
social justice storytelling is communitarian citizenship.

26
The relevance of communit arian citizenship lies in the definition of citizenship
participation as purposeful group action to create a cohesive just society and a strong sense of
community responsibility (Delanty, 2002; Etzioni, 1993; Janoski, 1998). The focus of this type
of citiz enship is care and concern for fellow community members expressed through
responsibility to the community. Citizenship approached in this way seems possible for, and
inclusive of, children. Recent theorising of a notion of children‘s citizenship builds on
communitarian understandings of citizenship, making a case for children‘s agency in the public
sphere or wider community (Kulnych, 2001; Lister, 2007, 2008). This is not to say that
communitarian citizenship is an easy fit for children‘s citizenship. Mille i and Imre (2009) argued
that the notion of children acting as citizens based on a communitarian version of citizenship is
problematic. Their argument is based on the dilemma of how to enable children to participate
fully in political life when they do not have the legal status or administrative capacity for such
participation. This study investigated this dilemma by exploring the possibilities and difficulties
of supporting young children‘s political participation.
Another citizenship approach that has fea tured prominently in recent citizenship
commentary is the notion of global citizenship. Global citizenship builds upon communitarian
citizenship, accepting responsibility for common humanitarian concerns (e.g., poverty, freedom
from violence) across the gl obe. It positions individuals as members of the wider community of
humanity, beyond the nation -state (J. Williams, 2002). A global view of citizenship
acknowledges the increased transnational movements of people and regard for all citizens of all
nations. The focus of global citizenship is responsibility to humanity regardless of age, ability,
culture, environment, faith, nationhood, occupation, political affiliation or sexuality. In an
investigation of young children‘s responses to social justice issues (t hat are not bound by the
nation -state), the qualities of global citizenship seem applicable to the possibilities for young
children‘s active citizenship. However, Millei and Imre (2009) caution that a view of children as
global citizens who act upon global issues invariably results in these issues being assigned by
policy and curriculum documents rather than arising out of children‘s concerns.
The above discussion provides an overview of citizenship rights and approaches .
However, citizens and citizenship practice within different citizenship approaches and discourses
are not homogeneous. According to Arvanitakis (2008), citizenship practice is heterogeneous. In
order to understand how diverse groups of citizens live together in the same community,
Arvanitak is proposed that citizenship be understood as ―a fluid and heterogeneous phenomenon
that can be in surplus, deficit, progressive and reactionary‖ (Research agenda: Investigating
citizenship surpluses and deficits, para . 6). To understand the heterogeneous nature of citizenship
he identified a typology of four citizenship spaces:
1. Marginalisation and citizenship deficit.
2. Privatisation and citizenship deficit .

27 3. Citizenship surplus – Empowered not engaged.
4. Insurgent citizenship – Empowered and engaged.
Arvani takis use d the term space to address the fluid phenomenon of citizenship, allowing for
instability and movement between areas.
Spaces of marginalisation and citizenship deficit (1) and insurgent citizenship (4) seem
most applicable to possibilities for yo ung children‘s active citizenship participation. Spaces of
privatisation and citizenship deficit (2) and citizenship surplus (3) are not applicable due to
reference s to independent economic resourcing. Y oung children are typically economically
dependent on adult protectors (Lister, 2007) . To Arvanitakis, spaces of marginalisation and
citizenship deficit are those in which citizens feel marginalised by not being listened to or
represented by civic institutions . Defined in this way, marginalisation and citize nship deficit can
be an experience for young children, as they have no formal avenues for their opinions to be
heard by civic institutions (Kulnych, 2001; Lister, 2007) . Citizens in this space consider that any
effort to pa rticipate will not be rewarded. T o Arvanitakis, a space of insurgent citizenship views
citizens as empowered and engaged. Citizens in this space come from position s of high social
capital, which cultivate a willingness to engage in political processes. This space could be
applicable to some young children, as there is potential for young children to be empowered and
engaged as citizens if they are motivated to act on issue s that concern them , as noted in the
vignette shared in the Prologue . A proposal of citizenship spaces offers a way to identify how
citizens engage in or disengage from civic participation. It provides another understanding of
citizenship with scope to investigate possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship
participation .
By defining citizenship in terms of rig hts (2.2.1), and consideration of citizenship
approaches and spaces (2.2.2), I identified the elements relevant to an investigation of young
children‘s active citizenship. Collectively, the recognition of citizenship rights, approaches, and
spaces provide s an overview of the context of citizenship in the broader society. Their systematic
definition provide s foundational knowledge from which to build an understanding of possibilities
for young children‘s active citizenship. In the following four sections, po ssibilities for children‘s
citizenship are explored through discussion of children‘s rights (2.2.3) , children as citizens
(2.2.4), models of children‘s citizenship (2.2.5), and practice of children‘s citizenship (2.2.6)
respectively .
2.2.3 Children’s Right s
If citizenship is viewed as a claim for social, political and civil rights consistent with the
definition of Marshall (1950), then a discussion of children‘s citizenship needs to begin with
children‘s rights. Children do not possess the same social, poli tical and civil rights as adults. This
section discusses early advocates for children‘s rights; the formation of the United Nations

28
Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) ; the rights it includes, its limitations, and the
importance of participation rights for actualisation of children‘s citizenship.
The idea of a bill of rights for children (which informed the formation of the UNCRC)
was first proposed by Polish doctor and pedagogue, Janusz Korczak (Alderson, 2008c). His bill
of rights for children was built on three basic rights: a) the right to die, b) the right to the present,
c) the right to be what s/he is (Cohen, 1994) . Korczak dreamed of realising the rights of the child
in a children‘s state. He established orphanages with a view to cultivati ng children‘s self -rule,
and he wrote stories to manifest this utopia (e.g., King Matt, the First , a story of a child king who
established a children‘s newspaper and parliament) . Korczak‘s visions of children‘s self -rule
have been described as pedocracy (L ifton, 1988). The legacy of his vision and devoted advocacy
for children‘s rights led to the establishment of legislation for children‘s rights.
Children first received social rights through the 1924 Geneva Declaration of the Rights
of the Child adopted b y the League of Nations, which was then endorsed by the United Nations
General Assembly in 1959 (Van Bueren, 1995). However, there was no reference to civil or
political rights, as the purpose of these rights was to protect children and not to increase the ir
autonomy (Coady, 2008). According to Isin and Turner (2002), children have been considered
better served by human rights legislation in that such legislation has worked to protect the rights
of those not protected by the state. The formulation of the UNCRC in 1989 went beyond
protective social rights and included some civil and political rights.
The acceptance o f the UNCRC was made possible through the modern understanding of
children‘s separateness from adults, with marked distinctions in expected beha viours, roles, and
responsibilities (Archard, 1993) . All nations adopted the UNCRC except the USA and Somalia,
making it the most widely accepted human rights instrument in the world (Prest & Wildblood,
2005) . According to Prest and Wildblood, two importan t legal shifts created a climate for the
wide acceptance of UNCRC. The first shift was that the state acquired the legal status of
obligations towards children, providing additional support to existing parental obligations. The
second shift was that intern ational law no longer viewed children as objects needing protection
but as subjects entitled to their own rights.
The UNCRC organises children‘s rights into three categories: provision, protection , and
participation (United Nations General Assembly, 1989) . The provision and protection categories
address social rights and are largely supported by what Archard (1993) referred to as the
―caretaker thesis ‖ (p. 77) . Such a thesis claims that children are not capable of making rational
autonomous decisions and t hat caretakers should make decisions for them. According to
Archard, t he participation category of children‘s rights that is advocated by child liberationists
has been accepted and supported less than the provision and protection categories . For example,
Article 12 particularly emphasises children‘s participation through voice by assuring children‘s
right to express their views freely in all matters that affect them (UNCRC, 1989). Some

29 (Lansdown, 2001; Van Bueren, 1995) consider this article as the most imp ortant in the
convention. Ethical practices of research with children endeavour to honour children‘s right to
express their views (MacNaughton & Smith, 2005; Roberts, 2008), such as was the intent of this
study. However, the extent to which Article 12 is translated into enforceable rights varies among
countries (Lister, 2007). According to Rayner (2002), the UNCRC only offer s quasi -legal status
in Australia because there is no national children‘s policy, and provision and protection rights are
addressed thr ough state policies. For these reasons full implementation of the UNCRC has not
been achieved in Australia although the UNCRC has enable d further movement towards
fulfilling citizenship rights for children through wide acceptance of children possessing the right
to be consulted.
Many view the participation rights defined in the UNCRC as aspirational and not yet
realised fully, as noted by Alderson (2008b, 2008c). According to Lansdown (1994), a reason for
this is that the notion of children‘s participation rights requires a significant shift in the
recognition of them as participants in society, which may be viewed as a threat to traditional
boundaries between adults and children. This is linked, as Lansdown explained, to children not
possessing civil statu s and their limited access to civil institutions to ensure that their interests are
acknowledged. Another factor influencing realisation of participation rights is the use of the core
principle of the UNCRC, that is, ―in the best interests of the child‖ to justify adult decision –
making in children‘s lives (Coady, 1996). According to Coady, this principle indicates that an
adult or group of adults is in a better position than the child to assess the interests of that child.
She suggested that this ―ignores t he central liberal insight about freedom rights: that the
individual is usually in the best position to know what is in her own interests‖ (p. 20). This
principle is also seen as ―a powerful tool in the hands of adults‖ (Lansdown, 1994, p. 41) as it is
―a woolly concept…incapable of being tested and monitored‖ (p. 42). To make a decision on
behalf of another is susceptible to manipulation. Understood this way, the principle of ―in the
best interests of the child‖ is paternalistic and denies freedom rights, that is, that the individual
knows best about her own interests. Metanarratives that cast children as innocent and
incompetent feed the thinking behind this principle and impact the realisation of children‘s
participation rights.
Though protection of the child is still the major focus of the UNCRC, there is
increased recognition of children as competent decision -makers in judicial and administrative
proceedings in Australia. For example, in Victoria, there has been an increase in acceptance of
children‘s testimony in family court hearings (Coady, 1996). Further examples of children‘s
participation in administrative proceedings in Australia include consultation with children to
create government plans that recognise children as active citizens, such as The ACT Children’s
Plan 2004 -2014 (Australian Capital Territory Government, 2004; Saballa, MacNaughton, &
Smith, 2008) and The City of Port Phillip Municipal Early Years Plan 2005 -2008

30
(MacNaughton & Smith, 2008; Smale, 2009). The establishment of Commissions for Children
and Young People in Queensland, New South Wales, Tasmania, and Western Australia has also
created avenues for children and young people‘s participation as citizens. Although participation
rights are not fully realisable, progression has occurr ed at local council, state, and territory levels
to consult with children on matters that affect their lives.
Limited support for children‘s participation rights has led to discussion and advocacy
for children‘s citizenship (Lister, 2007). This argument i s based on a view that citizenship offers
more than rights in that it may increase children‘s status in society so that their voices can be
heard through active engagement in decision -making that affects their lives. Even though
children gain the legal sta tus of citizenship in their country of residence by virtue of birth or
naturalisation, Lister explained that children are entitled to a passport as symbolic of this legal
view of citizenship, not the right to vote. James et al. (2008) declare that childhoo d studies
research has noted that children lack political rights but also many social and civic rights. Some
of the civic rights that James et al. identified as being denied to children include: access to courts,
avenues to challenge decisions that have be en made on their behalf, decision -making about their
education, and a formal voice in society. According to DeWinter (1997) the exclusion from such
rights places children in the same category as criminals and those diagnosed as mentally ill;
however , child ren possess more right s to provision and protection. An alignment of children‘s
access to rights with those of criminals and the mentally ill suggests a view of children as evil or
irrational. Theories (e.g., Hobbes, 1660/1996; Freud, 1923) that have culti vated such views may
have over time influenced thinking that has shaped decisions to exclude children‘s access to
political rights and many social and civic rights .
According to Kulnych (2001), social and civil rights have not necessarily changed
childre n‘s political status. These rights can be granted paternalistically without requiring
democratic participation, as noted with the implementation of the UNCRC. E nabling children to
possess political, social, and civic rights according to the theory of citiz enship espoused by
Marshall (1950) requires reconceptualising understandings of children, childhood and children‘s
citizenship. Reconceptualisation is required to cultivate spaces for children to claim rights by
having their voices heard and being active d ecision -makers about factors that affect their lives.
Unless children lobby and claim rights themselves, children‘s rights will remain paternalistically
conferred. Children‘s claims for rights may not present themselves in the same way as adult
claims. New ways of thinking about children, childhood and children‘s citizenship are required
to open avenues for children‘s claims for rights.
2.2.4 Children as Citizens?
With a view of children as agents gaining prevalence in education and society in recent time s, a
notion of children‘s citizenship has begun to be theorised and discussed in citizenship literature.
This section explores the case for children‘s citizenship, drawing from literature on children‘s

31 citizenship in general (which tends to focus on childr en aged nine years and older) and an
emerging body of literature specifically on young children‘s active citizenship. The possibilities,
problems, and limitations of notions of children‘s citizenship are extrapolated.
Citizenship p articipation is conside red to require reason, rationality and autonomy .
These are attributes that many adults consider children do not possess (Stasiulis, 2002), as
children are viewed as innocent and developing. Contrary to this understanding, Jans (2004)
observed, ―children … are strikingly sensitive about global social themes, like the environment
and peace‖ (p. 31). However, Jans noted that this sensibility of children is rarely used for actual
citizenship but as a base for future citizenship. Sociological models of children that position
child ren with competency and agency have helped to open discussion of possibilities for defining
children as active citizens and supporting children‘s practice as citizens of today.
Models of citizenship are unilaterally designed for adults ( Jans, 2004; Qvortrup, 2001).
To Stern (2006), the right to participation as an issue of democracy is not considered as
important for children as it is for adults. Typically children have been ignored in democracy and
citizenship literature and discourse, which equates citizenship with adults only ; or children are
portrayed as citizens of the future through terms such as ―citizens in waiting‖ or ―learner
citizens‖ (Jans, 2004; Lister, 2007). Sociological models of children (Corsaro, 1 997; James &
Prout, 1997 ; James et al., 1998) challenge these future orientations , arguing that children are
citizens of today. A view of children as agentic enables them to be active in the here and now.
However, it has more often been older children who have had opportunities t o be active decision –
makers and contributors to society. Only recently has a case been made for the participation of
younger children (e.g., Alderson, 2008b; Lansdown, 2005; MacNaughton, Hughes, & Smith,
2008).
In western societies, children are seen to b elong to the ―‗private‘ worlds of play,
domesticity and school‖ (Roche, 1999, p. 479). Children are excluded from the public sphere in
many ways. Parents, caregivers, and teachers carefully manage children‘s lives in these private
worlds. Social policy on, for, or about children typically focuses on protection, thereby
supporting this seclusion of children to private worlds (Woodhead, 1997; Wyness, 2000).
Discourses of childhood innocence and vulnerability have shaped such policies and practice,
which limit scope for children‘s participation in the public sphere.
A focus on participation offers scope to provide empowerment for young children as a
social group who can be decision -makers on matters that affect their lives with access to
engagement in the publ ic sphere. Recent support for children‘s participation however is typically
high in rhetoric and low in practical application (Kjorholt, 1998; Prout, 2002). Prout (2001)
noted in a study in the UK with children aged 5 -16 years that participants were alert to tokenistic
adult support for their participation. Later, Prout (2002) noted that the promise to be heard is
taken seriously by children and that failure to follow through ―may risk disappointment and even

32
cynicism about democratic values‖ (p. 75). The f indings of both Kjorholt and Prout suggest
potential fallibility of adult intentions to support children‘s citizenship participation. A notion of
children‘s citizenship participation may be able to be theorised and articulated but support for its
actualisa tion is troubled by metanarratives of children as innocent and cocooned in private
worlds or children as developing, so participation is oriented to the future. Further to this,
embedded social structures and practices (e.g., children‘s limited access to c ivic institutions)
exclude children‘s access to participation.
Research that theorises and conceptualises children‘s citizenship is growing.
Government and institutional policies are gradually changing to include language that positions
children as socia l actors entitled to be heard, valued, and perceived as responsible citizens.
Australian examples include: The ACT Children’s Plan 2004 -2014 (Australian Capital Territory,
2004; Saballa et al., 2008), and The City of Port Phillip Municipal Early Years Plan 2005 -2008
(MacNaughton & Smith, 2008; Smale, 2009). According to Minow (1999), including children as
participants alters their stance in the community so that they see themselves as members. Earlier,
DeWinter (1997) established this notion claiming that b y ―involving children from a very early
age in the organisation of the world in which they live, their repertoire of behavioural capabilities
grows‖ (p. 163). The provision of opportunities for children to participate in citizenship has
supplied substantia l evidence that children are capable of much more than adults think
(Lansdown, 2001, 2005; Stasiulis, 2002). For example, two internationally recognised child
activist groups warrant mentioning: Article 12 in the UK (see Lansdown, 2001) and Free the
Childr en in Canada (see Stasiulis, 2002). All members of both groups are under 18 years of age
and demonstrate high degrees of autonomy in managing their respective organisations to take
action on child rights issues (Lansdown, 2001; Stasiulis, 2002). Documented examples of young
children‘s citizenship participation are scarce, and Lister (2008) identified that for children‘s
participation to gain acceptance in many circles requires demonstration of their capacity as
participatory citizens. The recent increase in literature and policies that positions children as
participatory citizens indicates an effort to build acceptance of children‘s participation. Based on
the arguments of Lister, there also needs to be an increase in opportunities for children to engage
in civic participation.
To enable children‘s participation, Lister (2007, 2008) suggested that adults view
children as citizens so that children experience being treated respectfully as citizens , come to see
themselves as citizens, and participate actively as citiz ens. Evaluations of initiatives that enable
children to participate as citizens testify to how participation strengthens children‘s sense of
belonging to the community as well as equip s them with skills and capacities for active
citizenship (Eden & Roker, 2002; Lansdown, 2001) . These evaluations suggest that if adults
view citizenship as part of children‘s identities then opportunities become available for children
to participate in citizenship and build citizenship capabilities, such as decision -making. To

33 Kulnych (2001), genuine democratic participation for children is only possible if children are
recognised as possessing political identities. According to Lansdown (2001), democracy is
strengthened through children‘s active participation in societ y as another group in society
expresses their opinions and make s decisions. The understanding of political identity that
Kulnych referred to is that of active participation, which draws from definitions of citizenship
from Ancient Greece and communitarian theorists. Like Lister, Kulnych proposes that children
need to be seen as full participating members in order for their citizenship to be effective and
meaningful. Citizenship as political identity for either children or adults is central to genuine
democr acy in which all members of society can participate ―…in public deliberation that seeks
the most just solutions to common problems‖ (Kulnych, p. 232). If children are viewed as
political, Kulnych claimed their voices will be included in the larger politica l culture in a
comprehensive manner as genuine enactment of democratic participation rights.
Varying notions of children‘s citizenship can influence the scope of children‘s
participation. A notion of children‘s citizenship as political, as Kulnych (2001) proposed, has the
potential to offer scope for children‘s agentic engagement with the larger political culture. Others
(e.g., Gullestad , 1997) have observed that a notion of children as citizens can strengthen images
of innocence associated with national i dentity , which makes visible elements of romance or
idealism that surround the notion of children as citizens. Notions of innocence also point to
future orientations of citizenship, as children are illustrated as citizens of the future. Another
notion of c hildren‘s citizenship is the claim for greater rights, which positions children as a
disenfranchised group that should have access to democratic rights or as a threatened group
requiring protection (Kjorholt, 2002). This notion seems to support a view of c hildren as a
minority group yet involves adults as torchbearers for the children‘s movement. Rights
discourses have led to increased reference in policy documents to children as citizens (Millei &
Imre, 2009). However, as Millei and Imre (2009) note in the ir analysis of Australian early
childhood policy documents, these references are mostly a ―future building exercise‖ (p. 285)
with children positioned as learning duty and responsibility. Such references suggest
metanarratives of good citizen and developin g child, with children schooled to be good citizens.
Another notion of children‘s citizenship that Kjorholt noted in her analysis of discourses of
children and participation was of children positioned as resources. A view of children as
resources in citize nship practice emphas es adult wonder and honour at children‘s participation,
which Kjorholt noted seemed to have a ―significant mythical power‖ (p. 75). Each of these
varying notions of children‘s citizenship is shaped by different discourses that define p ossibilities
for children‘s citizenship participation.
The various views of children present in notion s of children‘s citizenship signal the
messiness of conceptualising children‘s citizenship. To Millei and Imre (2009), ―children as a
social category sim ply cannot act as citizens in the modern nation -state‖ because they do not

34
have access to institutional freedoms, or the freedom to organise, to own property or to ―extract
their labour from the ‗learning environment‘‖ (p. 288). They concluded that childre n‘s
citizenship is a loose notion without any real possibilities.
Many factors work to exclude or limit children‘s participation as citizens . These
include metanarratives that contribute to attitudes and practices that view children as innocent or
develo ping, and therefore not possessing the capacity to engage in civic participation or have
access to the public sphere. Sociological models of children support an understanding of children
as citizens of today; however, this seems to have produced more rheto ric than actualisation of
children‘s engagement as citizens. There is a bind, as Lister (2008) suggested , between children‘s
demonstration of citizenship practice and children‘s acceptance as citizens. The following section
(2.2.5) provides an overview of recently proposed models of children‘s citizenship to guide adult
support for children‘s citizenship practice.
2.2.5 Models of Children’s Citizenship
To provide scope for children‘s actual citizenship practice a number of models have been
proposed. In chil dren‘s citizenship literature , the eight -step ladder of children‘s participation
(Hart, 1997), the socially interdependent model developed by Cockburn (1998) and The Evolving
Capacities of the Child by Lansdown (2005) are perhaps the most well -known and si gnificant
models. These models provide a solid base for advocating and enabling children‘s active
citizenship participation. In addition to these models the idea offered by Kulnych (2001) that
children‘s citizenship be viewed as children possessing politic al identities is discussed further.
This idea is of particular interest to this study for its emphasis on raising children‘s status in
society as active, contributive members . What follow s discusses how children and adults are
viewed, how citizenship pract ice is defined in these children‘s citizenship models , and their
relevance to this study.
The eight -step ladder of participation proposed by Hart (1997) provides a useful
hierarchical model of possibilities for children‘s participation by identifying dif ferent degrees of
children‘s autonomy. These range from manipulation, where adults use children‘s voices to carry
their own messages, to child -initiated participation with shared decisions with adults. The highest
rung of the ladder includes decision -makin g with adults, as Hart recognised that children‘s
proposed actions can exceed their abilities to execute them due to their limited access to civic
institutions and resources . The adult -child divide in social structures of contemporary society
makes it nece ssary for children to engage with adults, though to support children‘s autonomy
there needs to be joint decision -making. This is a view of children‘s participation as
interdependent with adults. Hart also proposed an emphasis on children‘s participation in the
local community so that children can build connections and affection for their local community.
However, Sinclair (2004) critiqued the hierarchical nature of this model, claiming that it
positions the highest rung of the ladder as the ideal form of ch ildren‘s participation . This implies

35 the identification of a universal truth and disregards variants, emergence , and diversity in
children‘s participation.
Interdependence is also embedded in the socially interdependent model of citizenship
proposed by Coc kburn (1998). This model suggests that children‘s citizenship involve s children
and adults as reciprocally dependent on each other through recognition of the interdependence of
all human beings. To Cockburn citizenship is not something that is acquired or gained in
increments by age, but rather is a quality that is pre -existing. This model emphasises connections
among people, through rights, duties, and obligations. It supports practice of citizenship where
children and adults collaborate, with children pos itioned as social actors and their contribut ions
to society being valued. However, as Cockburn and others such as James et al. (2008)
recognis ed, this requires a shift in the way childhood and adulthood are viewed and constructed.
Cockburn was hopeful that this could happen: ―If social relations can produce dependent and
devalued children, it can p otentially produce the converse, that of children valued and respected‖
(p. 11 3). To enable a model of children‘s citizenship participation as interdependence, Co ckburn
argued that a shift in social relations is required to cultivate spaces and places where children are
valued and respected.
Another more recent model is a concept of children‘s citizenship as evolving capacities ,
as depicted in the UNICEF publicati on The Evolving Capacities of the Child (Lansdown , 2005).
This model advocates for children‘s participation to create change and develop autonomy but
recognises that possibilities vary according to a child‘s experience, capacity and socio -cultural
context. This reinforces the arguments of Minow (1999) and DeWinter (1997) that children need
opportunities to participate so that their citizenship capabilities can grow. Adults who are
supportive of this model assist children‘s participation according to their c apacities while
protecting them from the full responsibility of adulthood. The acknowledgment of different
capacities according to different ages and protection from unaccomplished capacities resonates
with a view of children as naturally developing. Howev er, Lansdown also recognised the
influence of social construction in children‘s achievement of capacities so that in different
contexts children of similar ages may have different capacities.
A different way to foreground children‘s understanding and voi ce was presented by
Kulnych (2001) who proposed viewing children‘s citizenship as children with political identities.
She suggested that children be seen as political actors, who authorize children‘s citizenship and
are incorporated into political culture. However, she identified a dichotomy of order/disorder
influencing the possibility of children‘s citizenship. According to Kulnych, views of children as
disorderly, and the public realm as orderly, have shaped children‘s exclusion from the public
realm. Sh e proposed that adults welcome an understanding of autonomy that acknowledges
experiences of anxiety, incoherence, and disorder as offering potential to public debates.
Although her intention was to challenge the order/disorder dichotomy and embrace childr en‘s

36
participation on children‘s terms, the use of words such as anxiety, incoherence and disorder are
negative or deficit terms compared with dispositions associated with adults (e.g., controlled,
coherent and ordered). Perhaps for this alternative unders tanding of autonomy, parallel words
such as concerned, tangent, and organic, suggest greater value of children‘s ways of thinking and
expressing. From this understanding of autonomy, Kulnych suggested a greater compatibility
with resistant forms of partici pation (e.g., protest rally) rather than conventional forms (e.g.,
voting). To Kulnych, the activities in which children are already engaged are resistant forms of
participation rather than conventional forms. For example, Kulnych cited a case of street ch ildren
in Brazil who rallied together seeking protection as a resistant form of participation that
presented evidence for national policies to address their concerns. Kulnych saw support for
resistant forms of participation possess the potential to challen ge cultural constructs of children‘s
identities and work to define, create, and recreate the world. This model offers scope for
recognition of children within wider political culture in ways children choose to operate, not by
conforming to adult convention s.
Although all of these models position children as social agents and actively support
children‘s participation in society at all ages, they are adult constructed . Lansdown (2005), Hart
(1997), and Cockburn (1998) recognis e the importance of repositionin g children‘s place in
society and advocate for children as competent contributors . Such repositioning contrasts with
views of children as incompetent, irrational, and irresponsible. Kulnych (2001) foregrounds
children‘s way s of being and inclusion in the w ider political culture. The domination of adult
conceptions and articulations in the domain of children‘s citizenship makes notions of children‘s
citizenship susceptible to paternalism. Adults invariably speak for children, especially young
children , on cl aims for children‘s citizenship rights. This is different to the claims of other
marginalised groups for citizenship rights, in which representatives of the group speak for
themselves. However, young children‘s reduced access to resources and their economi c
dependence on adults affect their capacity to speak for themselves. This points to a central
problem of a notion of young children‘s active citizenship, that is, young children‘s dependence
on adults .
One way of addressing this was proposed by Lister (20 08), who suggested that the
distinction that Iris Young (1995) makes between autonomy and self -sufficiency offers a helpful
guide. To Young, autonomy as the ability to make and act upon choices is contrasted against a
view of self -sufficiency as not needin g help from anyone to meet your needs. Advocates for the
inclusion of participation rights in a definition of children‘s citizenship seek the inclusion of
autonomy. Lister suggested that this definition of autonomy is most applicable given children‘s
econo mic dependence on adults, as it offers scope for defining the parameters of children‘s
participation, that is, how they make and act upon choices.

37 The above discussion has provided an overview of four models of children‘s citizenship,
their possibilities , and limitations. What differentiates these models from the claims for
citizenship from other marginalised groups is that they have not been proposed by the group
seeking citizenship participation. Adults are claiming children‘s citizenship rights on chil dren‘s
behalf. A number of noted factors affect children‘s capacity to claim citizenship rights. These
limitations aside, children have engaged in active communitarian citizenship as discussed in the
following section.
2.2.6 Practice of Children’s Citizen ship
Opportunities for children‘s actual practice of citizenship seem to have been limited to small
pockets , even though c onsiderable theoris ing of children‘s citizenship in recen t times has seen a
shift in how children are positioned in policies. In the f ollowing section I discuss we ll-
documented examples of child -initia ted active citizenship, that is, children expressing
responsibility to others through purposeful action . Recently documented examples of young
children‘s active citizenship practice in Australia are also included, though these are examples of
adult -initiated citizenship practice that focus on consultation with children. The relationship
between children‘s citizenship policy and practice is also critiqued.
The largest network of children as active citizens in the world , with more than one
million members , is Free the Children (Stasiulis, 2002). Craig Kielberger formed this network in
1995, when at the age of 12, he was motivated to take action on child labour after learnin g of the
murder of I qbal Masih, a debt -enslaved loom worker and child labour activist of Paki stan (Free
the Children, 2007). Beginning as a group of friends gathering in Craig‘s family garage, the
network now contributes to innovative education and development programs across 45 countries.
This is the largest scale evidence of older children engaging in child -authored citizenship, as the
formation of the group was child initiated and the group has continued to act autonomously by
making and acting upon their decisions. This ex ample of authorship and autonomy in children‘s
citizenship practice highlights aspirations and possibilities for young children‘s active
citizenship.
The practices of Free the Children were defined by Stasiulis (2002) as examples of
child -authored global citizenship, which occur through the network‘s young members practis ing
responsibility to other s on issues of global concern. Members of Free the Children claim their
rights as citizens to voice and act upon global issues as well as claim rights for child ren with less
access to resources. Members of Free the Children speak and act for children in countries
affected by war, child labour and/or poverty. C hildren from economically rich countries speak ing
on behalf of children from economically poor countries raises potential risks of colonial -like
practices. However, Stasiulis claims that Free the Children leaders, Craig Kielburger and Laura
Hannant , have taken care to avoid ―neo -colonialist appropriations of third world issues‖ (p. 530) ,
for example, Craig acknowledges that the struggle against child labour ―did not begin in the

38
west, but rather began with organisations such as CWA [Child Workers of Asia]‖ (Kielburger,
1998, p. 75) . The active members of Free the Children are articulate global activists who ar e
empowered, knowledgeable, compassionate, and autonomous in achieving objectives. To
Stasiulis, this image of children is noticeably incongruous with the widespread western
hegemonic ideology of innocent, pampered, irrational, pre -political childhoods and children. The
strength and momentum of this international organisation demonstrates that active citizenship by
older children is possible.
Perhaps the most well known evidence of a young child initiating social action is the
fundraising project for well s in Africa initiated by Ryan Hreljac. In 1998, at six years of age
Ryan began raising funds to build a well for a school in a Ugandan village. With the support of
his family Ryan went on to form Ryan’s Well Foundation , which has contributed to 502 wells i n
16 countries (Ryan's Well Foundation, 2007) . This story is relayed in environmental education
programs and humanit arian education programs to inspire upper primary students to also take
action on issues that concern them . Documented evidence of young chi ldren initiating social
action seem rare, so this story is heralded as extraordinary given his age at the time .
There are several examples of adults who consult with young children on issues
relevant to their lives. These are purposeful acts by adults k een to support a notion of young
children as active citizens. Two Australian examples previously mentioned include The ACT
Children’s Plan 2004 -2014 (Australian Capital Territory, 2004; Saballa et al., 2008), and The
City of Port Phillip Municipal Early Ye ars Plan 2005 -2008 (MacNaughton & Smith, 2008;
Smale, 2009) . Other documented examples of young children as active citizens portray children
as citizens in t heir learning communities. For instance, a doctoral study by Page (2008) examined
emotions and citi zenship in lived experiences of friendship for children aged four and five years
and concluded that acknowledgment of emotions in citizenship creates new opportunities for
respectful communities that value emotions, agency and identity. Another Australian study is
currently investigating young children‘s active citizenship in terms of their learning about social
and moral values (Brownlee et al., 2009) . Examples of young children as active citizens have
only recently begun to be documented and researched, w ith possibilities for young children‘s
active citizenship being explored. Various approaches and notion s of children‘s citizenship are
being tr ialled and analysed to determine how to foreground young children‘s expression of
autonomy when widespread social structures and practices position young children as dependent
on adults. Issues of working with children dependant on adults are much more prevalent for
young children‘s positioning as citizens, than that of older children.
Even though many have theoris ed and critiqued the notion of children as citizens (e.g.,
Coady, 2008; DeWinter, 1997; Jans, 2004; Kjorholt, 2002; Kulnych, 2001; Lister, 2007; Millei
& Imre, 2009; Prout, 2001, 2002; Roche, 1999; Stasiulis, 2002) and a number of models of
children‘s citi zenship have been proposed (e.g., Hart, 1997; Cockburn, 1998 , Lansdown, 2005;

39 Kulnych, 2001), there ha ve been few investigations of children‘s actual practice as citizens.
Children could be much more involv ed as participants in the public sphere , but as Ku lnych
claimed, actualisation of children‘s participation ha s merely scratched the surface .
A shift in understanding of children as social actors has slowly begun through the use
of language in international conventions, such as the UNCRC , local government policies such as
The ACT Children’s Plan 2004 -2014 (Australian Capital Territory Government, 2004) and
curriculum documents, such as Belonging , Being and Becoming: The Early Years Learning
Framework for Australia (Australian Government Department of Educa tion Employment and
Workplace Relations , 2009) . Each of these documents refers to children as active citizens.
However, James et al. (2008) recognised a demarcation between policy and practice; t hey saw
the adult emphasis on protection and care of children forming a ―thin red line‖ (p. 89).
Legislative controls that act under the guise of protective c are for children were identified as a
major limiting factor for children‘s participation. Their argument identifies the need for further
investigation of the h egemonic positioning of discourses of protection over discourses of
participation. Models of children‘s citizenship provide ideas for potentially supporting and
enabl ing children‘s participation. However, it is c lose examination of what can be actualised
when children and adults collaborate as citizens that contributes understandings of the real
possibilities of children‘s citizenship p articipation . How children‘s active engagement in
citizenship practice can be supported in educational settings is discusse d in the next section
through consideration of pedagogical principles and practices selected for their potential to
support young children‘s practice as active citizens.
2.3 Pedagogy
The word pedagogy derives from French and Latin adaptations of the Greek roots pais meaning
―child‖ and ago meaning ―to lead‖ (Macedo, 2000). According to Macedo , pedagogy ―is
inherently directive and must always be transformative‖ (p. 25). There is a consciousness and
purpose implied in pedagogy, as Watkins and Mortimore (1999) defin ed it as ―any conscious
activity by one person designed to enhance learning in another‖ (p. 3). They offer this definition
to include learner s and to not imply that it is always teacher s who facilitate pedagogy.
Understood in this way the intervent ion of a practice of social justice storytelling to provoke
children‘s active citizenship participation is a conscious activity.
Another definition of pedagogy proposed by Freire (1970, 1973, 1974, 1998) was as a
way of viewing and listening . This under standing presents a shift from an emphasis on one -way
instruction to a two -way exchange of seeing , listening , wondering and dialogue. Such an
understanding of pedagogy support s democratic practice as teacher s and learner s are viewed in
more equal positions with both express ing opinions and be ing heard.
This section provides an investigation of pedagogical approaches that have the
potential to promote and provoke young children‘s active citizenship. It begins with an

40
examination of teaching and learning pr actices in early childhood education (2.3.1) to assess
their potential support for young children‘s active citizenship participation. Then specific
pedagogical practices are explored for what they might offer to a storytelling program designed
to provoke y oung children‘s critical awareness and active citizenship participation. Approaches
to democracy in education (2.3.2) are examined for their capacity and suitability for engaging
with young children as active citizens in a classroom setting. Education for social change (2.3.3)
is explored as a platform for active citizenship to be enacted through open dialogue on social
justice issues and encouraging responsibility and care about these issues. Next, the broad domain
of aesthetic encounters (2.3.4) is discus sed for its capacity to provoke education for social
change. Finally, storytelling is specifically reviewed as a way of knowing (2.3.5) and as a
pedagogy (2.3.6). A case for employing a practice of social justice storytelling (2.3.7) to provoke
young child ren‘s active citizenship is then compared with similar studies that investigate young
children‘s responses to social justice stories.
2.3.1 Teaching and Learning Practices in Early Childhood Education
This discussion uses the term teaching and learning pra ctices to include historical and
contemporary contributions to early childhood education. Pedagogy as a term has only been
recently introduced to early childhood education in Anglo -nations (Dahlberg, Moss & Pence,
1999). A number of theories have influence d practice in early childhood education . This section
(2.3.1) provides an overview of some teaching and learning practice s in early chi ldhood
education and how these position children. Critiques of these practices are discussed. These
enable identification of the capacity of these practices to provoke and promote young children‘s
active citizenship in an early childhood educational setting .
Many practices relating to contemporary early childhood education can be traced back
to the ideas of German pedagogue Froebel (Weber, 1984) . Play as education for young children
was one of these ideas. To Froebel, play was ―the highest phase of child development‖ and ―the
purest, most spi ritual activity of man [sic] at this stage‖ ( Weber, p. 38 ). It was his romantic
reverence for ―the inner law of the child‘s self -development‖ that led him to recognise the
―educational significance of children‘s play‖ (Brubacher, 1966, p. 124) . His view of children
drew from romanticism, in which the child is seen as good by nature, such as discussed in a view
of the child as innocent. The idea of play as a central integrating element of children‘s
development and learning formed a core component of his concept of an educational program for
young children: the kindergarten. His concept of the kindergarten proposed both an institution
and an approach, which included a curriculum of play wit h designed objects such as balls and
blocks, along with songs and stories ―to present the ideal of good behaviour‖ (Weber, p. 42).
Stories shared included Grimms‘ fairytales, which as previously discussed, espoused values of
good citizenship. The concept o f the kindergarten as both an institution and an approach has
since been adopted across the globe. The widespread establishment of kindergartens has lead to

41 an enduring commitment to the importance of play in early childhood education. The term play-
based is frequently applied to foreground th is importance.
Play in the early years was recognised by Wood (2008) as constituting ―one of the
most enduring discourses in early childhood education‖ (p. 6). Such discourses of play can
be traced back to the ideas of Rousseau and Froebel of children as innocent or good by
nature. In the Froebelian view of play, children are protected from corrupting influences of
society and dangers of nature (Shapiro, 1983). According to Ailwood (2003) , this romantic
rhetoric assumes play is always positive, with negative aspects conveniently ignored . In
terms of children‘s citizenship, this protected view of play and its support for child hood as
innocent seem s incompatible or disparate to the socially aware practices of political and
communitarian citizenship. Ear ly childhood practices that support a romantic view of play
would not welcome ideas of children engaging with the public sphere as is involved in
political and communitarian citizenship.
Although play is strong in ideology, in practice there has been fuzzi ness b etween
play as natural activity and play as an intentional educational activity. Sutton -Smith (1997)
claimed that emphasis on play in children‘s developmen t has tended to ignore the ways in
which children use play f or power, construct meaning, devise and adopt multiple roles and
identities. He recognis ed that play can provide a space where children can express their
resentmen t at being a captive population through stories that portray a world of great flux,
anarchy a nd disaster. Davies (2003) and Gilbert (1994) also suggested that children act out
what they desire in their play. In addition, commitment to play in early childhood education
draws from western ideologies, yet assumes universalism across the globe (Cannella &
Viruru, 2004) . The free -choice factor of a play -based approach has also been identified as
not benefiting all children (Brooker, 2002) with discourses of gender practice s identified as
restricting choices for play (Ryan, 2005) . These varying critiques of play have seen the
practice of play in early c hildhood education reflected on and employed for specific
purposes, such as those suggested by Sutton -Smith, Davies and Gilb ert.
Child -centred ness is also a key principle frequently referred to in early childhood
education that draws from ideas such as the metaphor of the child as a seed , espoused by Froebel
(1887) , and theories of the child as developing , as espoused by Piage t (1929; 1932; 1950/2001,
1952, 1962). Central to the ideas of child -centredness is the emphasis on individualism through
nurturing the unique needs and capabilities of each individual child (Shapiro, 1983). Core
practices of child -centredness involve observing and recording individual children‘s interactions
to design learning experiences built on these observed needs . These practices have been
recognised as continuing central practices in early childhood education by Siraj-Blatchford
(1999) and Wood (2008 ).

42
The provision of an environment with hands -on activities supports a core principle
of child -centred ness and play in early childhood education, that of ―I do and I understand‖.
Hands -on activities or experiential learning as advocated by Dewey (1938/199 8) are understood
to enable individual children to learn by doing at their own pace. I n a study of early childhood
teaching practices, Walkerdine (1984) identified that teachers viewed omission of child -centred
play-based experiences in a child‘s learning of concepts as ― the worst sin of the child -centred
pedagogy‖ (p. 188). This further indicates how the ideology of play and child -centre dness has
strongly influenced early childhood teach ing practice . If child -centredness is understood as
children learning by doing at their own pace in early childhood teaching and learning practices,
then this may limit possibilities for citizenship collaborations with others.
Developmental psychology has also influenced early childhood teaching and learning
practices. Pia get and Vygotsky are two of the most influential developmental psychology
theorists. Piaget (1929, 1932, 1950/2001, 1952, 1962) contributed significantly to understandings
of cognitive development, which have informed the learning theory of constructivism. The basic
assumption of constructivism is that learning is an active process, with learning resulting from
learners constructing their own knowledge. Key understandings from the theories of Piaget that
inform some early childhood teaching and learning pra ctices include:
1. Children progress through universal developmental stages.
2. Children construct knowledge through hands -on exp eriences.
3. Development and learning result from maturation and experience.
4. Play is an important vehicle for develop ment (Berthelsen, 2008; Bredekamp, 1987,
Bredekamp & Copple, 1997, Copple & Bredekamp, 2009; NAEYC, 2009; Siraj -Blatchford,
1999) .
In socio -cultural theory, Vygostky (1978) also saw learning as an active process that was
embedded with social events and o ccurred as a child interacted with people, objects and events in
the environment. Vygotsky argued that these varied according to each child‘s context. This way
of thinking led to the formation of social -constructivism . Central to social -constructivism is
acknowledgment of the socio -cultural context. Although Piaget and Vygotsky were
contemporaries, the theories of Piaget were adopted in early childhood practices from the 1960s
(Weber, 1984), whereas the theories of Vygotsky were not adopted until the 1990s (e.g.,
Bodrova & Leong, 1996).
Many commentators (e.g., Cannella, 1997; Dahlberg, Moss & Pence, 1999;
MacNaughton, 2005; Walkerdine, 1984) recognise d evelopmental psychology as having a
dominant influence on early childhood practices. This significant influence has occurred through
widespread support for DAP (Bredekamp, 1987; Bredekamp & Copple, 1997; Copple &
Bredekamp, 2009; NAEYC, 2009) . Underpinned by the theories of Dewey (1916, 1934, 1938),
Piaget (1929, 1932, 1950/2001, 1952, 1962), and more recent ly Vygotsky (1978), Rogoff (19 90,

43 1998, 2003) and Gardner (1993), the aim of DAP is to guide children‘s learning according to
their development. DAP involves the provision of both adult -guided and child -guided hands -on
learning experiences according to individual progression through universal developmental stages
(Bredekamp, 1987; Bredekamp & Copple, 1997; Copple & Bredekamp, 2009; NAEYC, 2009) .
Teachers observe and record c hildren‘s participation in these learning experiences to assess their
developmental progress and identify developmental goals. Learning experiences are then
planned to address these goals. In many ways DAP incorporates the principles of play and child –
centredness with an emphasis on addressing children‘s developmental needs.
The signifi cance of DAP is indicated through peak early childhood associations
such as the US National Association for the Education of Young Children as marked through
three editions of position statements on DAP (1987, 1997, 2009). These guidelines have had
substa ntial impact on early childhood curricula, policies and practices (Raines & Johnston,
2003) . The first edition (1987) was largely grounded in constructivism and the theories of Piaget
on development. The second edition (1997) acknowledged the growing attention to socio –
cultural theories in child development and addressed the need for a broader more socio -cultural
perspective (Raines & Johnston). The distinguis hing additions to the third edition (2009) were
recent research on school -readiness and early literacy and numeracy development. This appears
to be driven by the current US -emphasis on outcomes -based education as enforced by the No
Child Left Behind Act of 2001. A new feature of the 2009 statement is reference to citizenship :
―Teachers and administrators in early childhood education play a critical role in shaping the
future of our citizenry and democracy‖ (p. 23). This reference however , positions children as
future citizens . Although NAEYC included a notion of children‘s citizenship, a developmental
view presents a future orientation.
In recent times there has been great interest in the teaching and learning practices
applied in the schools of Reggio Emil ia, Italy (e.g., Cadwell & Rinaldi, 2003; Edwards, Gandini,
& Forman, 1993, 1998 ) that are based on a view of children as competent and having rights.
Practices in the schools of Reggio Emilia, Italy , are informed by ideas from Dewey (1902,
1899/1956) on s ocial relationships and learning, and on the ideas of Piaget (1971) on
epistemology. However, the ideas espoused by Vygotsky (1978) on learning as a socially and
culturally situated activity and those who expanded on these theories, such as Bruner (1986) and
Rogoff (1990, 1998, 2003), are the main influence (New, 1998) . These approaches call for
practices such as reciprocal learning, ongoing learning projects (e.g., Ceppi & Zini, 1998),
cultivat ing partnerships between staff and families, produc ing detaile d pedagogical
documentation with children , and devot ing time to analysing, debating and reflecting upon
pedagogical practice (Cadwell & Rinaldi) . Children interact and negotiat e with others as social
agents in these practices, which support a view of child ren as socially and culturally constructed .
Learning is understood as relational. In Reggio Emilia schools, practitioners reflect on practice to

44
deepen understandings of the influence of practice on children‘s learning through documentation
and dialogue wi th others (Malaguzzi, 1993). Malaguzzi drew inspiration for close critique of
practice from Hawkins (1966) who argued for practitioners to be seen as interpreters of
educational phenomena, appreciating knowledge of practice as deeply meaningful.
Ideas su ch as an emergent curriculum coined as a term by Betty Jones (Jones & Nimmo,
1994) are part of the practices of schools in Reggio Emilia and employed in early childhood
education in other countries (e.g., Australia and the US). In an emergent curriculum, t opics,
projects and activities of learning interest are generated and plotted in a webbed pattern as
documentation of the program/pathways of learning (Nimmo & Jones). In Australia, a growing
number of early childhood services follow various versions of wh at is commonly referred to as
the Reg gio approach or ―doing Reggio‖. This approach includes inquiry -driven teaching and
learning practices and comprehensive documentation practices (Bowes, 2007) .
Many of the practices associated with the schools in Reggi o Emilia are supportive of
young children‘s active citizenship participation. To Kinney and Wharton (2006) , the practices
of listening to children‘s many voices, learning in groups, and acknowledging the contributions
of others implemented in schools in Reggio Emilia are displays of democracy in action. Such
practices are recognised as providing a way for children‘s ideas and opinions to be heard, their
capabilities to be celebrated, and a process of nurturing engagement with children as citizens in
the learning environment. However, Cheeseman and Robertson (2006) recognis ed how
children‘s right to privacy was often infringed in early childh ood practices of pedagogical
documentation. By this, Cheeseman and Robertson are referring to the practice of documenting
and displaying children‘s participation in learning programs for all families, staff and visitors to
see. At times the attention to ch ildren‘s participation in pedagogical documentation can overlook
children‘s right to not participate, to not share their thoughts and actions with others in public
spaces through pedagogical documentation.
Critical pedagogy supports notions of democra cy in education along with education for
social change (both of which are discussed in the next two sections respectively). Contemporary
early childhood practice has seen critical pedagogy applied by some early childhood practitioners
in recent years. Through engagement with critical pedagogy a number of early childhood
practitioners and researchers (e.g., Soto, 2000; Kessler & Hauser, 2000; Kilderry, 2004) have
claimed it is a useful theoretical framework in early childhood education to expose critical issues .
Specific critical pedagogical practices include assisting children to question accepted practices
and participat e in community -building practices (MacNaughton & Williams, 2009) . The
application of critical pedagogy in early childhood education supports a view of children as
socially constructed by positioning children as competent and capable social and political actors.
Through application of critical pedagogy, early childhood researchers and practitioners
have observed that children can dialogue about real local and global issues. Evidence suggests

45 that young children can become critically aware of such issues as race (Derman -Sparks, Ramsey,
& Edwards, 2006; MacNaughton & Davis, 2001), faith (Cowhey, 2006), AIDS (Silin, 1995,
2000, 2005), and the Septem ber 11 attacks on New York and Washington (Soto, 2005). Critical
pedagogy practices offer scope to support communitarian citizenship participation through
recognition of injustices and in some cases the enactment of social actions to redress these
injustic es.
Collectively, the above discussion provides an overview of some of the theories and
practices informing early childhood education . More recent approaches such as emergent
curriculum and critical pedagogy offer scope to support and enable young childr en‘s active
citizenship participation. To build upon this base, different approaches to promoting and
supporting democracy in education are considered for their relevance and suitability for young
children‘s active citizenship participation in early childh ood education .
2.3.2 Democracy in Education
A concept of democracy in education has been discussed and theorised since its inception in the
polis of Athens, main ly as a means of preparing young people for participation in the ruling of
their society (Bies ta, 2007) . Differ ent conceptions of democracy in education as pedagogical
principles and practices that view students as agentic have been proposed in educational theory
over time. Three conceptions as defined by Biesta are explor ed in terms of how each co nception
defines children, teachers and democratic prac tice in education. They include an individualistic
conception based on the theories of Kant (1784/1992 ), a social conception based on the theories
of Dewey (1916) , and a political conception based on the theory of action espoused by Arendt
(1958/1998) . In this section, the capacity of e ach conception to enable and support young
children‘s agency to be active citizens in their participation in an educational context is
considered.
First, an individualis tic conception of democracy in education is based on the thinkin g of
Enlightenment philosophers such as Kant (1784/1992) . The emphasis of this conception is on
individuals being able to make up their own minds and think for themselves without direction
from others. The central idea of the individualistic conception of the democratic person espoused
by Kant is rational autonom y (Biesta, 2007), that is, free -thinking individuals. Democratic
practice in this conception emphasis es freedom of expression and choi ce for individuals.
According to Biesta, teachers who practi se an individualistic conception of democracy in
education endeavour to teach children logical rules with the aim of c ultivating rational
individuals. Such practices are informed by the conceptio n of the democratic person as rational
and autonom ous. The emphasis on rational autonomy involves the individual being a free
subject, but also a moral subject, who engages in self -law or autonomy (Biesta). Such
understandings are linked to the theories of Piaget (1929, 1932, 1950/2001, 1952, 1962)
regarding cognitive and moral development and practices such as child -centredness. An

46
individualistic conception of democracy offers a strong basis for supporting the expression of
individual opinions on issues, though there are potential dangers in denying or disregarding
others through an individualist focus. This conception aligns with a liberal approach to
citizenship through a common emphasis on the individual.
Second, a social conception of democracy in educ ation, based on the influential text
Democracy and education (Dewey, 1916) , views the democratic ideal as requiring two elements:
1. Numerous and varied points of shared common interest with strong reliance on
these mutual interests for social control.
2. Freer interaction between social groups that change and adjust through
engagement with varied intercourse.
Dewey‘s emphasis was on the group, and differed from Kant‘s emphasis on the individual. To
Dewey, democracy was enacted through groups that come together through common interests.
Democratic practice then occurs as members of the group interact freely, changing and adjusting
in response to their engagement with each other and external influences. This conception places
an emphasis on interactions and an un derstanding that interactions inform thoughts and
behaviours. A child is viewed as being shaped by interactions. Such understandings link with
social theories of learning (e.g., Vygotsky, 1978), in which learning occurs through interactions
with others. Pr actice in this conception is based on two -way co -operative interaction and
communication where groups make something in common. To Dewey, a group that has many
different interests, with full and free interplay of these interests, offers greater opportuniti es for
individuals to develop and grow than a group that is isolated from other groups and united by
few interests. Cooperation between members of a group, such as a class of students, is a central
idea to this social conception.
In a classroom context, a social conception of democracy could be played out through
both children and adults considering the direction of actions in reference to others. Teachers who
practise a social conception of democracy concentrate on facilitating group co -operation in the
interactions of the classroom as it supports a view of democracy as sharing power among people.
A social conception provides a way to form a cooperative class community for the engagement
of collective citizenship practices.
Although there is an emphasi s on the social elements of democracy in the proposals of
Dewey for democracy in education, Biesta (2007) argued there is still a trace of individualism.
Dewey (1916) saw participation in democracy as creating a democratic person, that is, that the
purpose of democratic education was to cultivate democratic individuals. The conception of the
democratic person by Arendt (1958/1998) suggests a different perspective.
Based on the theory of action proposed by Arendt (1958/1998) , a political conception of
democr acy defines the third conception as proposed by Biesta (2007). In this conce ption of
democracy in education both child ren and teacher s are seen as active beings , with what it means

47 to be human defined by human actions. To Arendt , the first step in human ac tion is to take
initiative . Through actions individuals bri ng something new into the world. This acknowledges
that people do not act in isolation and that through action individuals insert themselves into the
polis or public sphere: a place in which we live with others. This conception is also social.
However, Biesta argue d that it is political because agency is only possible in situations in which
others are agentic as well. Arendt saw that it is only in action that the individual becomes a
democratic agent. This is because others respond to our initiatives, and it is through the interplay
of initiat ed actions and supportive response s to those initiated actions that democracy is
practised . In situations where individuals try to control the responses of othe rs or block their
opportunit ies to begin, the agency of the individual is denied . In a political conception of
democracy in education , children are viewed as political through their capacity to initiate and
respond t o others in ways that support the initia tives of each other .
Democratic practice from an Arendtian (1958/1998) politic al conception is action –
focused . Support for action brings concern for others, as individuals take care to not block the
initiatives of others . Actions then involve responsive i nteraction with others through interplay of
doing, saying, listening and waiting. Such interactions welcome plurality and difference in that
―beginnings are taken up by others in unprecedented, unpredictable and uncontrollable ways‖
(Biesta, 2007, Three qu estions for democratic education, para . 9). A focus on action addresses
the active descriptor in youn g children‘s active citizenship . A political conception of democracy
therefore offers scope for children to initiate social actions that consider the agenc y of others as
active citizenship with the class as well as the wider community.
Democracy in education offer s scope for supporting children‘s agen cy in citizenship
practice, with each of the above conceptions offering dif ferent emphases and qualities. How ever,
there have been critics of the notion of a ‗democratic classroom‘, such as Raywid (1987) who
suggested that it is a mistake or a misnomer , declaring that the principles of adult politics cannot
be applied to the classroom. Raywid argued that young ch ildren need to learn control over
themselves and their environment, not be given more freedom. To Raywid, the problem is that
authority and control clash with democratic ideals of freedom . The idea of a democratic
classroom is bewitching according to Raywi d, yet she viewed it as impossible when teachers are
in positions of authority. Freire (1998) addressed this dilemma by explaining that the
democratically minded educator needs to critically and constantly question how to convey a
sense of limit that could be ethically integrated into freedom itself. To Freire , democracy in
education is a respectful practice where ed ucator and students collaborate and involves teachers
respect ing the autonomy, identity, and knowledge of students orchestrated through cultiva ting a
balance between freedom and authority. This signals a need for critical reflection of pedagogical
practices to support democracy in education through awareness and questioning of individual
expressions, interactions, dialogue and actions.

48
Democracy in education thus requires ongoing c ritical reflection of practices to ensure
members of the learning community are agentic. Individualistic, social, and political conceptions
of democracy in education offer different emphases on how students and teachers can be agentic
in a learning community. In the context of this study, a political conception offers a stronger
connection to supporting and promoting young children‘s active citizenship, through actions that
support the agency of all participants. The foll owing section discusses the democratic and
citizenship practices of education for social change.
2.3.3 Education for Social Change
Education for social change offers a way to cultivate communitarian citizenship participation.
Critical pedagogues , such as Freire (1974), Giroux (1983, 2003) and Greene (1995) , advocate for
education that provokes social change . These critical pedagogues support communitarian
citizenship through education for social change by cultivating critical awareness of unjust
practices and taking action to address these unjust practices.
To Freire (1974), the awakening of critical awareness or what he called
conscientização was necessary for education to provoke social change . He explained that critical
awareness could only occur in ―a ctive dialogical educational programs concerned with social and
political responsibility and [that are] prepared to avoid the danger of massification‖ (p. 19). The
concept of massification defines the process in which people remain susceptible to the magic al,
mythical, illogical, an d irrational practices of power by following such practices blindly.
Educators for social change seek to support communitarian principles by alerting students of
unacceptable practices of power, and enabling social action to chan ge the se practices.
To add contemporary concerns to the ideas of Freire (1974), Giroux (2003) argued that
educators need to combine both critical theory concerns (e.g., social justice, equality, freedom,
and rights) and post -modern concerns (e.g., differe nce, plurality, power, discourse, identities and
micropolitics). To Giroux, education for social change is more than appropriating difference as
the reason for domin ation, oppression and struggle; educators for social change are concerned
with knowing :
what it takes for individuals and social groups to believe that they have any
responsibility whatsoever to care, have an investment in, or even address the often unjust
consequences of class, race, gender oppression and related m aterial relations of
dominati on (p. 56).
This form of education embraces the goals of critical theory to provoke awareness of social
justice issues through critical questioning of social structures. Giroux added that post -modernism
can offer a way to understand how disadvantage is cu ltivated through identification of difference,
plurality, power, discourse, identities, and micro politics in operation.
With regard to children‘s civic participation, educators for social change such as Giroux
(1983) argue that the aim should not be to fi t students into the existing society but to ―stimulate

49 their passions, imaginations, and intellects so that they will be moved to challenge the social,
political and economic forces that weigh so heavily upon their lives‖ (p. 201). Education for
social cha nge supports displays of civic courage through demonstrations of a willingness to act.
To Giroux, support for civic participation in education must rest on the following pedagogical
assumptions. First, students must be active in the learning process and be taught to think
critically. Second, students are encouraged to speak from their experiences (or histories).
Although Giroux‘s ideas targeted high school contexts, these pedagogical assumptions could be
applied in early childhood education.
The writings o f American educational philosopher Maxine Greene (1995) on
education for social change through the arts (especially narrative encounters) have great
relevance to this study. Greene a rgued for treating the world as more than simply there, by
stirring ―wide -awakeness, to imaginative action, and to renewed consciousness of
possibility" (p. 43). To Greene, t his experience of wide -awakeness can occur when teachers
teach for the sake of arousing vivid, reflective experiential responses by releasing
imagination th rough the arts. Such an idea of wide -awakeness aligns with conscientização as
espoused by Freire (1974) . Like Freire, Greene also supported the opening of wider spaces
of dialogue so that students and teachers speak in their own voices and reflect together on
issues of critical concern. Greene saw that these spaces of dialogue could endeavour to
nurture what Arendt (1958/1998) referred to as ―in -between‖ or a ―‗web‘ of human
relationships‖ (p. 183). Engagement in education for social change thus can relate and bind
people together in the same way that communitarianism acts aim to create a cohesive and
just society.
According to Greene (1995), the motivation to act for social change can in part be
created by stories. By stories she meant the voice of personal perspectives as well as
listening to the stories of others in the spaces of dialogue. Spaces for dialogue can inspire
students to come together to understand what social justice actually means and what it might
demand . Students can experience a sense of o bligation and responsibility by acting on their
own initiatives ―in relation to such principles as freedom, equality, justice and concern for
others‖ (Greene, 1995, p. 68). This in turn cultivates an awareness of other perspectives and
identification of po ints of agreement. Greene saw that people could come together , as Arendt
(1958/1998) proposed , through spoken words and action to create something in common.
From this understanding, Greene envisioned classrooms that value multiple perspectives,
democratic pluralism, life narratives and ongoing social change.
Education for social change offers a pedagogy that supports the intentions of this study
to provoke young children‘s active citizenship through social justice storytelling . From a position
of conscie ntização , or wide -awakeness of social justice issues , a sense of responsibility to
address injustices can evolve. Education for social change respects humanity and enables

50
communitarianism. The idea of art cultivating wide -awakeness as suggested by Greene is
discussed further in the following section about the affective domain of aesthetic encounters.
2.3.4 Aesthetic Encounters
In this section (2.3.4) I explore the idea of aesthetic encounters cultivating social change. This
idea is discussed by defining ae sthetic encounters, how aesthetic encounters provoke social
change, and their application in education. Aesthetic encounters are considered to be a means of
building an understanding of humanity among young children .
The experience of the aesthetic is an intangible, emotive experience that humans
struggle to shape into words. It is a term that was coined by Baumgarten in 1750 by referring to
the Greek root aisthe , which means to feel or apprehend through the senses (Abbs, 1987; Barilli,
1993). Aesthetics i nvolves acute awareness of our sensory perceptions combined with
intellectual cognition through interpretation or readings of our sensory perceptions (Diaz, 2004).
To Greene (1995), a esthetic encounters include engagement with the arts (e.g., stories, poem s,
dance performances, concerts, paintings, films and plays ) that offer pleasure but also demand
affective responses , cognitive rigour and analysis .
To explain the aesthetic experience, Dewey (1934) applied the metaphor of a stone
rolling down a hill that is looking forward to the journey, relishing the encounters along the way,
and relates the end of the journe y to all that went before. This understanding of aesthetic
encounters views the whole experience as interconnected or relational to all its parts. It also
highlights the emotive responses that are aroused, those of anticipation, enjoyment and
reflection. The recognition of interconnections through reflection offers scope for new
understandings and transformation. This definition from Dewey is useful in understanding what
actually occurs in the experience of an aesthetic enc ounter and why it can provoke
transformation. Contemporary authorit ies on aesthetics in education , Abbs (1989) and Greene
(1995) , concur that aesthetic encounters cultivate a sensuous, analogical and poetic mode of
knowing. They claim this distinctive mode of knowing is what cultivates the strength of aesthetic
encounters to provok e shifts in awareness to transform knowledge , making it more intelligible.
The aesthetic encounter often evokes metaphoric thinking, which connects disparate
realms to create a de eper and extended meaning. To Dewey (1916), an aesthetic encounter offers
alternative ways of understanding matter through presentation in a succinct and/or emotive
manner. Through this combined sensory and intellectual experience, Diaz (2004) claim ed that
aesthetic encounters enable us to relate to the world of others and develop connections of a
humane quality. Aesthetic encounters free us to imagine wh at we might not be able to know but
can feel and experience. The aesthetic experience can inspire kno wing and seeing the world
differently .
According to critical theorist Marcuse (1978), the arts communicate the voices of the
oppressed and the possibilities of human freedom symbolically, metaphorically and sensuously

51 with coherence, power and conviction. T he aesthetic encounter, he argued, can provide a space
for dimensions of reality to reveal and liberate what has been repressed and regarded as taboo.
The symbolism and sensuousness of the aesthetic encounter possesses great power for new
insight, especial ly when time is allowed for musings over the sensory perceptions. Marcuse
encapsulated this sentiment with ―Art cannot change the world, but it can contribute to the
consciousness and drives of the men and women who could change the world‖ (p. 32) . By
positioning children as agentic, this study saw children as also possessing the capacity to change
the world. To Marcuse , art can shift consciousness by inviting multiple, fragmented and diverse
positions on social justice issues, so that values of diversity, tolerance, human dignity and equal
respect are embraced. The language of aesthetics makes ―perceptible, visible, audible that which
is no longer or not Yet perceived, sai d, and heard in everyday life‖ (Marcuse, 1978, p. 72). By
this Marcuse claimed that th e language of aesthetics can communicate what is not communicable
in any other language. Perhaps realities can be communicated in other languages but the
language of aesthetics can offer a more coherent, clarified and emotive message. On the basis of
these assumptions, aesthetic experiences can cultivate an awareness of the possibilities of a more
just and humane world.
In education, Abbs (1989) saw the capacity of aesthetic experiences to cultivate shifts
in consciousness and change occur when the teache r is positioned as coartist. In this
position, the teacher not only initiates the aesthetic activity but is also creative agent
throughout the activity. He provided the example of the method of creative intervention
espoused by Dorothy Heathcote in what is known as process drama. In such creative
intervention, the drama teacher moves from one role to another in response to what the
creative process requires. For example, as organiser the teacher can observe and critique the
whole action carefully, and as co dramatist the teacher can enter ‗in role‘ to free the creative
process from blocks or clichés. According to Abbs, this ―requires immense integrity and a
sensitive feeling for aesthetic form‖ (p. 40). To act with integrity and sensitivity the role of
creati ve agent involves careful observation to know when and how to intervene to develop
and deepen the encounter.
To Greene (1995, 2004), the cultivation of shifts in consciousness through aesthetic
experiences in education is defined as a notion of wide-awake ness, as discussed previously. Her
notion of wide -awakeness is not about sudden or short bursts of shifts in consciousness but rather
an ongoing deeper awareness of what it is to be in the world. Aesthetic encounters that cultivate
such wide -awakeness are seen by Greene (1995) to be produced by teachers who employ the
arts to create spaces for dialogue, personal connections, ―renewed consciousness of
possibility‖ (p.43) and imaginative action . She particularly saw that literature bore the
capacity to captiv ate people to see and feel the perspective of another, which motivates
relations, possibilities and actions. Greene has hope in the capacity of aesthetic experiences

52
to stimulate the kind of reflective practice and learning that is aimed for by educators for
social change .
Aesthetic encounters as clarified, coherent and intensified forms offer ways of
understanding humanity that are not as accessible in other forms. In this way aesthetic encounters
are understood to trigger shifts in consciousness by enab ling new and diverse understandings of
the experiences of others . Engagement with aesthetic encounters can also provoke understanding
of others through interactive, emergent responses to each other in the creative process. With the
inquiry of this study ba sed on storytelling, in t he next section I discuss storytelling as an aesthetic
encounter and its capacity to cultivate understandings of humanity and provoke shifts in
consciousness .
2.3.5 Storytelling as a Way of Knowing
Storytelling was selected for t his inquiry into young children‘s active citizenship based on my
prior experiences as discussed in Chapter 1. In this study, storytelling is positioned as an
aesthetic encounter and as a pedagogy. In this section (2.3.5) I discuss the particular qualities of
storytelling as an aesthetic encounter and how these qualities can provoke and promote active
citizenship.
The term storytelling is used so broadly that there are many varying interpretations of
what it means. In this study storytelling is understood to be an oral art form where a teller
performs a story with a live audience. Both teller and listener experience the story together in the
same place at the same time. In this understanding there is no book present to separate the
relation ship between the teller and the listener. The storyteller holds the story in her mind and
uses words and gesture to bring the story alive before the listeners. Critical theorist Walter
Benjamin (1955/1999) describe d the act of storytelling as the storyteller drawing from her
experience or that of others and ―making it the experience of those who are listening to the tale‖
(p. 87). Listeners can connect with the characters and accompany th e teller on the journey of
experience, then emerge with new insight and understandings. To Zipes (2005), the storyteller is
―an actor, an agent, a translator, an animator, and …a thief who robs treasures to give something
substantive to the poor‖ (p. 17). The treas ures are the collective pool of stories of humanity .
Storytellers hear or read stories and take what they like, then transform them with their personal
and ideological viewpoints to perform (verbally and kinaesthetically ) a substantive tale for their
chosen audience.
Storytelling enables connection with the other. Even though story teller s may share a
story that is not their personal experience, a good storyteller will always share something of
herself through the intimacy of connection with her audience. Benjamin (1955/1999) describes
this quality of storytelling as: "traces of the storyteller cling to the story the way the handprints of
the potter cling to the clay vessel‖ (p. 91). In many ways this personal sharing creates intimacy
and thereby draws the listener in, as she identifies her life with that of the storyteller. There are

53 points of connection that resonate with listeners, for they may have had similar experiences or
they can imagine that the same could happen to them. This intimacy can invoke what Arendt
(1958/1998) referred to as a web of human relationships , as the conne ction between storyteller,
story, and listener cultivates connections with others.
The relationship with others is at the core of live oral storytelling. It is not a lone
experience; there must be tellers and listeners. This significant feature sets it apa rt from reading
literature. In her work on Hannah Arendt, Julia Kristeva (2001) described live oral storytelling as
an experience of ―inter -being‖ (p. 15). The fate of the story depends on being with others. To
Kristeva the co -implication of selves and oth ers is in the loop of storytelling. Storytelling implies
an existence of community because it requires storytellers and audiences who listen and respond.
The involvement of others is necessary for meaning. Benjamin (1955/ 1999), Arendt (1958/1998)
and Krist eva all claim that in storytelling, meaning rests with the listeners. The experience of
meaning -making in storytelling is distinguished from reading by Benjamin, who explains that
story is consumed collectively , whereas a novel is devoured selfishly.
Storytelling has the capacity to activate plurality of possible meanings that multiplies
significance, yet resists closure. Through storytelling our experiences, desires and anxieties can
be made evident to us and to others. To Arendt (1958/1998, 1970), storyt elling captures the
shape of an individual human life and endows it with meaning: ―storytelling reveals meaning
without the error of defining it‖ (1970, p. 105). By this Arendt inferred that meaning is never
definitive, as listeners will create meanings ap plicable to their li ves and experiences . The nature
of story and storytelling allow s listeners to form multiple pos sible meanings. To Benjamin
(1955/ 1999), th e possibility of multiple meanings is half of t he art of storytelling, that is, ―to keep
a story f ree from explanation as one reproduces it‖ (p. 89). Although a storyteller will paint
incredible detail of the extraordinary and the ordinary for the listener, the psychological
connection of the events is not forced on the listener. This is why Benjamin c laimed that story
achieves a fullness of understanding that information lacks, because it is up to the listener to
interpret the content of the story in the way she understands it. There is scope through story for
the listener to make personal connections, an exchange of experience that Benjamin called
Erfahrung , when one learns something about oneself and the world. Further to this idea of
multiplicity of meanings, Fisher (1987) claimed that there is no story that is not embedded in
other stories and the m eaning and merit of a story is determined through its positioning against
other stories. This shared experience of meaning is heightened in the collective context of live
oral storytelling as opposed to the individual experience of story through text or ne w media
technologies.
Story provides a way for humans to frame their understanding of the world, giving shape
and order to it (Fisher, 1987) . To Bruner (1986), story is defined as a way of knowing . Thr ough
his explanations of how readers interpret stories he identified three features of readers making a

54
story their own: implicit meanings, subjectification and multiple perspectives . When each reader
or listener experiences a story they read into the text implicit meanings, understandings of the
world from the position of the protagonist (subjectification) and understandings of story events
from multiple perspectives. To Bruner ―‗great‘ storytelling is about compelling human plights
that are accessible to ‗readers‘‖ (p. 35). The accessibility of stories is his key point. Connection
with a story is necessary to be affected. Yet Bruner clarified that the story still needs to allow
space for the reader‘s (or listener‘s) imagination so she can make the story he r own. Each person
can experience the same story differently. A story will trigger different personal connections,
different messages and different levels of meaning for each person in different contexts at
different times. Saxby (1994) and Dyson and Genis hi (1994) acknowledge that young children in
particular possess a disposition to explain and explore both their inner and outer worlds through
story.
The capacity of story to provoke understanding of the world includes cultivating a
deeper sense of humani ty. One argument for this was offered by Bruner (2003) on the basis of
medical cases of people with the neur ological disorder dysnarrativia, the inability to tell or
understand stories. Bruner described how people suffering from dysnarrativia are unable to sense
what other people might be thinking, feeling or even seeing. According to Bruner, t hese people
present as having lost a sense of self as well as a sense of others. On this basis, Bruner concluded
that we need the ability to tell and understand stori es to develop an understanding of identity and
humanity. Such understandings are acquired through developing understandings of thoughts and
feelings in oneself and recognising them in others.
Like Bruner (2003), Nussbaum (1997) recognised that if people are deprived of stories
their capacity to understand other people is limited. She claimed story was particularly useful for
children to nurture understanding of others because the complexities of humanity are not always
visible in everyday interactions for children to view and understand readily. Understandings of
humanity are only reached according to Nussbaum, via the training of the imagination that
storytelling fosters. People in stories are imagined, then understood ―as spacious and deep, with
qualitat ive differences from oneself and hidden places worthy of respect‖ (p. 90). To Nussbaum,
storytelling cultivates deeper understanding of difference that nurtures respect for others. She
proposed that as children grasp complexities of humanity (such as perse verance and unfairness)
by learning their dynamics through story in particular tragedies, they become capable of
compassion. To be compassionate Nussbaum claimed, requires ―a sense of one's own
vulnerability to misfortune‖ (p. 91). This involves imagining that this suffering could be
happening to one‘s self, which Nussbaum refers to as sympathetic imagination . To Nussbaum,
sympathetic imagination requires ―imaginative and emotional receptivity‖ and demonstration of
―a capacity for openness and responsivenes s‖ (p. 98). Storytellers such as Estes (1992) refer to
this ability of storytelling to provoke a mergence of the mind with another reality as

55 ―sympathetic magic‖ (p. 387). Storytelling is understood to have a unique capacity to cultivate
sympathetic imagin ation, to imagine another‘s perspective and build a greater understanding of
the complexities of humanity.
By imagining the predicament of another, a precise awareness of our common
vulnerability is nurtured. This, Nussbaum claimed (1997), is a valuable a ttribute to becoming
global citizens. Through cultivation of sympathetic imagination, we are then able to comprehend
the choices of people different from ourselves. She propose d that sharing tragedies with children
acquaints them as citizens with understan dings of the bad things that may happen in a human life
but also equips them with understanding of diversity of choice of action. Arendt (1958/1998)
also saw that story ha s the capacity to carry the weight of tragedy, to convey it and offer insights.
On th e basis of such understandings of story, Nussbaum suggest ed that the goals of global
citizenship are best promoted through story in a deliberative and critical spirit. She propose d that
stories are not simply shared to provoke compassion, but that the stor ies are deliberated and
critiqued as if the story is a friend .2 From this view Nussbaum suggested we ask ―What does this
friendship do to my mind? What does this new friend ask me to notice, to desire, to care about?
How does he or she invite me to view m y fellow human beings? ‖ (p. 100). Such questioning
offers a means to promote or provoke participation as global citizens who act for humanity.
Philosophers, theorists, storytellers, linguists and educators have thus claimed that the
live, oral artform of storytelling cultivates understandings of humanity. By being a live,
descriptive, performative and collective experience storytelling facilitates connection with others,
that is, between the storyteller and listener but also between the storyteller, liste ner and the
characters in the story. These connections enable understandings of other experiences and build
respect and compassion for others. They also point to storytelling being an effective tool to
promote or provoke citizenship participation. These id eas h old relevance for sharing social
justice stories with young children to create a space for broadening understandi ngs of humanity
and active citizenship participation, through responsive interactions with others. The possibilities
of storytelling as pe dagogy are discussed in the next section to contextualise the use of
storytelling in an educational setting used in this study.
2.3.6 Storytelling as P edagogy
This section discusses the application and benefits of storytelling in education, notable works,
and recent research about storytelling as pedagogy. Gaps in this body of literature are identified
and an explanation offered of how this study adds to emergent research on storytelling as
pedagogy through an investigation of a practice of social justice storytelling.
There is a strong tradition of oral storytelling as education, though Zipes (1995)
surmised that much of the research on the tradition of oral storytellers is speculative as little was

2 Nussbaum adopt ed this idea from Booth (1988) , who suggested viewing a literary work as a friend.

56
written about storytellers until the nineteenth centur y. Zipes stated that tellers came from all
sectors of society and told purposeful and functional stories that fitted with their situation. Stories
―were disseminated to instruct, warn, satirize, amuse, parody, preach, question, illustrate, explain,
and enj oy‖ (p. 20). The intent of meaning depended on the teller and the situation. This tradition
of oral storytelling for educational purposes occurred and continues to occur across cultures
according to cultural genres and values (Kramsch, 1998).
In early ch ildhood education, storytelling is recognised as a core component of the
kindergarten curriculum proposed by Froebel (Weber, 1984). Many educators acknowledge long
lists of benefits of storytelling in early childhood education (Barton & Booth, 1990; P. J. Cooper,
Collins, & Saxby, 1994; Egan, 1986; Hamilton & Weiss, 1990; Jaffe, 2000; Jennings, 1991;
Mallan, 1991; Paley, 1981, 1993, 1997; Rosen, 1988; Trostle Brand & Donato, 2001). These
include qualities such as stimulating imagination, improving listening , aiding critical thinking,
building understanding of emotions and forming a strong learning community. American
educator Jaffe claim ed storytelling c ould be a vehicle ―for effective communication of
curriculum content, with long -lasting repercussions for children as learners and participants in a
complex and demanding world‖ (p. 175). According to Kuyvenhoven (2005), these benefits
account for storytelling as a teaching method, as a tool. What is absent in the literature is a
rationale for storytelling its elf to affect the entire teaching process, not just as a tool on an ad hoc
basis. Both Rosen and Kuyvenhoven have expressed frustration at not being able to source an
educational theory of storytelling. Although much is written on the beneficial nature of
storytelling in education, storytelling as pedagogy has not been theorised adequately.
The use of storytelling as an engaging and meaningful teaching methodology in the
literature is most notable in the work of Egan (1986, 1997, 2005) and Paley (1981, 199 3, 1997).
Egan proposed that teachers approach a unit of learning as a story to be told. He built his
argument on the notion that ―children‘s imaginations are the post powerful and energetic learning
tools‖ (p. 2) and that stories are an activity that enga ges children‘s imaginations . Egan drew on
the power of the story form for teaching. He argued that carefully crafted stories enable children
to acquire higher levels of meaning of abstract concepts of humanity, such as death, love, honour
and courage. Howe ver, noted that few teachers have embraced fully Egan‘s storytelling approach
to curric ulum ( Mello, 2001) . Paley provides detailed accounts of story as the pillar of the
kindergarten curriculum. She positioned children as storytellers through a curriculum that
consists largely of children dictating stories that are then acted out (P.M. Cooper, 2005).
However, very few researchers and writers have expanded on or critiqued either the case for
teaching as storytelling advocated by Egan or the attention to stor y at the core of the kindergarten
curriculum advocated by Paley .
To be a storyteller or a storytelling teacher is an acquired skill that draws from both
performance and language arts. As accounted for earlier by Benjamin (1955/1999) and Zipes

57 (2005), mu ltiple skills and positions are performed at once. The drawcard for many teachers who
switch to storytelling teachers is what Kuyvenhoven (2005) referred to as the ―listener‘s hush‖
(p. 34): those moments when listeners are completely entranced by the abil ity of the storyteller to
bring the story alive. She noted how storytelling teachers (e.g., Dailey, 1994; Rosen, 1988)
switch to regularly incorporate storytelling into their teaching because of the power of the hush.
What this effect told these teachers w as that the students were engaged; they were switched on as
listeners and learners. Yet this is not the primary rationale for storytelling teachers to embrace
storytelling in their teaching practice. The listener‘s hush may account for the change to
storyt elling teaching, but it is the deep connection and pleasure of being together through
storytelling that truly converts teachers to be storytelling teachers (Kuyvenhoven).
The identified theoretical gap in the notion of storytelling as pedagogy prodded
Kuyvenhoven (2005) to define a pedagogy of storytelling from her ethnographic study of a
storytelling teacher with a grade 4/5 class. In this study, Kuyvenhoven identified that a pedagogy
of storytelling operated on three rings of participation. These include d social awareness
operating in the outer ring, mindful interaction , and deep imaginative engagement at the core. As
a teaching practice she found it created a rich learning place. For example, the teacher told the
story of Anne Frank when the children wer e learning about Remembrance Day, which drew
awareness to the plight of Jewish people in WWII. This led onto further discussion and inquiry
of the Nazi movement. The teacher told a story to commence a unit of learning that crossed
many curricula areas and welcomed children‘s stories. Through story, the children found new
understandings and possibilities that they reflected upon, wondered about and linked to their
class community. They learned that stories are socially constructed, and mediated and
understoo d story as situational, referential and connected to human experience. This occurred
through the teacher and children sharing stories and jokes, which exposed their individual values,
interests and experiences. This social awareness enabled the children to listen and think with
mindful interaction. Through mindful interaction the children could work with stories as models,
concepts, illustrations, metaphors and analogies for learning to cultivate deep imaginative
engagement. Circles of learning were then no urished through the storytelling teacher and
children‘s social awareness, mindful interaction and deep imaginative engagement experienced
through stories.
The above framework for storytelling as pedagogy proposed by Kuyvenhoven (2005)
contributes useful un derstandings to the practice of storytelling as pedagogy. However, it is only
a recent and small contribution to a narrow body of research on storytelling as pedagogy.
Although Kuyvenhoven is a professional storyteller and teacher, she did not study her ow n
practice but that of another storytelling teacher. Only a few storytellers have completed in -depth
studies of their own practice (e.g., Josephs, 2005; Mello, 1999). In Australia, Mallan (2003)
completed doctoral research that focused on storytelling with two classes of primary -aged

58
children, but her research inquiry attended to children‘s storytelling. Most studies on storytelling
in education involve researchers observing the teacher and/or the children‘s storytelling practice
in the classroom (Boone, 20 05; Britsch, 1992; Groce, 2001; Heath, 1983; Kuyvenhoven). Many
others have also written about children as storytellers (e.g., Dyson & Genishi, 1994; Fox, 1997,
1998; Paley, 1981, 1993, 1997). Deeper understandings are still needed to form theories of
storytelling as pedagogy that can impact on everyday teaching practice. Such deeper
understandings can be achieved through self-reflection of a storyteller‘s practice, identifying
emergent unanticipated learning. My inquiry of a practice of social justice storytelling provok ing
young children‘s active citizenship endeavour ed to cultivate deeper understandings of
storytelling as pedagogy .
2.3.7 Social Justice Storytelling
The particular interest of this study in terms of storytelling as pedagogy is social justi ce
storytelling to explore issues of social justice with young children as active citizens. Storytelling
in this study examined the telling of stories that provoke awareness of social justice issues. A
case for inquiry into social justice storytelling as p edagogy is argued through reference to related
studies and literature and their different foci. In this study, social justice is based on the
definitions of Greene (1995) and Benhabib (1986, 1992). To Greene, social justice involves
people becoming aware o f the need for regard for the other, regardless of differences. To define
the other , Benhabib offered distinguishing explanations of the generalis ed and the concrete
other. The generalised other requires a view of every individual entitled to the same righ ts that
we want. From this position we look for commonality with the other and build expectations and
assumptions of reciprocity and equality. Such a view of the generalised other operates in public
spaces, based on universal rights of humanity. In contras t, the concrete other requires a view of
every individual with ―a concrete history, identity, and affective -emotional constitution‖
(Benhabib, 1986, p. 411). From this position there is greater potential to understand the needs,
motivations and desires of others; differences are seen to complement each other rather than
exclude. This view of the concrete other operates in private spaces through expressions of
responsibility, bonding and sharing. From an understanding of how this dichotomy operates,
Benhabib then argues that justice always requires engagement with the concrete other . By this,
Benhabib sees that it is only through efforts to understand the history, identity and affective –
emotional constitution of an individual that we come to understand her ex perience of injustice.
On the basis of this understanding, individual (concrete other) histories, identities and affective –
emotional constitutions were shared through story in this study as a way to cultivate
understanding of injustice.
There is a noticea ble paucity in research that investigates social justice storytelling as
pedagogy with young children. Studies that examine the responses of children to children‘s
literature on social and/or civic issues abound (e.g., Davies, 1991; Hawkins, 2008; Manifold ,

59 2007; Schwerdt, 2006) . Some storytellers have published or recorded their experiences of social
justice storytelling with children, for example Judith Black (2005) and La‘Ron Williams
(Brother Wolf, 2008) in the USA , and Boori Pryor (Pryor & McDonald, 1998) and Donna
Jacobs -Sife (see www.donnajacobsife.com ) in Australia. As mentioned in Chapter 1, social
justice storytelling with hig h school students has been researched recently (Bell, 2009, 2010) ,
and t he use of persona dolls to tell stories of discrimination has been documented and researched
(Brown, 1998, 2001; MacNaughton & Davis, 2001; Whitney, 1999) . However, as noted earlier
the emphasis in literature on persona do lls was not on the art of storytelling. Another body of
research that has some similarity with this study consists of investigations of the employment of
traditional stories in moral development and education. For example, psychological studies
completed i n the USA (Beal, Garrod, Ruben, Stewart, & Dekle, 1997; Garrod, Beal, & Shin,
1990) and war -torn Bosnia (Garrod et al., 2003) investigated the moral development of children
by seeking their responses to fable dilemmas. However, these studies had a scientif ic focus on
eliciting the verbal responses of children, not on creating personal connection through the stories
or on citizenship participation. In citizenship education, stories have been used to develop social
and moral responsibility in primary classroo ms through teaching resources such as the UK
Citizenship Foundation publication You, Me, Us! (Rowe & Newton, 1994) . The use of traditional
stories with moral content as pretexts for process drama with primar y students has been
investigated by Winston (1998) . Winston found that through dramatic engagement with stories
the students appeared to understand that the moral meanings in stories are not simple and
didactic; instead, the students made personal connection s, cultivating a relational view of
morality. Although all the above examples point to a strong convention of the use of story for
exploration of moral values, and moral values are seen to be part of citizenship (Halstead & Pike,
2006), this study is conce rned with actions not moral values. Of interest to this study is the use of
traditional stories to make visible injustices and identify how young children respond to these
injustices through active citizenship participation, not moral deliberation. The chi ldren were
positioned as active citizens with valuable opinions and contributions to address the dilemmas in
the stories by being agentic in real situations.
In terms of social justice stories, some early childhood reconceptualise rs such as Silin
(1995) have discussed topics with young children that are considered controversial and taboo,
such as AIDS and sexuality. Silin shared his experience of a friend dying from AIDS with
elementary school children and found that sharing a first hand experience held tre mendous power
to raise difficult issues. The personal tone of this experience created a safe space for sharing
emotions and asking questions that enabled the children to deal with these issues, which in many
other contexts are silenced or withheld intentio nally from them . Silin probably does not de scribe
himself as a storyteller; h e was not concerned abo ut the art form of storytelling but rather the
openness and honesty of sharing personal experiences. The above alerts to the intimacy of

60
relationships that personal stories facilitate between listener and teller for respectful and
sympathetic understand ing of social justice issues.
Another field of research with regard to social justice storytelling is the telling of
counternarratives or counter stories . Cou nternarratives , or what Lyotard (1984) described as
―petit récit‖ (p. 60), are small localised narratives of individuals or groups whose knowledge and
history has been ―marginalised, excluded, subjugated or forgotten in the telling of official
narratives‖ (Lankshear & Peters, 1996, p. 2). Counter stories are used in critical race theory
research and involve the development of stories on life experiences of people of colour that
counter majoritarian or monovocal stories that perpetuate racism (Solarzano & Yo sso, 2001,
2002) . To Solórzano and Yosso (2001, 2002) majoritarian stories a re deficit stories that social
scientists commonly use to exemplify social and cultural issues for people of colour.
Majoritarian stories are stories of blame, causation and respon sibility that are heralded as truth.
For example, t he sharing of a story based on the experiences of people from the S tolen
Generation in Chapter 1 is a co unternarrative or counter story in that it provided the story of an
Aboriginal woman to counter aspec ts of marjoritarian stories: the commonly known ―white ‖
version of Australian history. The main purpose of counternarratives and counter stories is to
challenge dominant ideologies by sharing stories of experiences that are rarely told and therefore
rarely heard. In this regard counternarratives and counter stories offer understandings of what
Benhabib (1986, 1992) referred to as the concrete other and in turn can challeng e perceived
wisdoms by providing a cont ext to transform belief systems. The social jus tice storytelling
project with high school students undertaken by Bell (2009, 2010) employed counter stories in a
practice that she defined as counterstorytelling. She viewed counterstorytelling as a political
practice of creating new stories that challeng e the status quo and offer an alter native version of
reality. The idea of counternarratives is discussed further in Chapter 3 as a theoretical concept
applied in t he study.
Metaphori c stories provide another genre for social justice storytelling. As disc ussed
with aesthetic encounters, metaphors have the capacity to convey meaning in a succinct and
affective way. T he capacity of metaphoric stories to evoke affective meaning was noted by Egan
(1986) . Exploration of social justice issues requires engagement with abstract concepts, so
metaphor can act as a valuable linking device for meaning -making for young children. To
nurture these responses, Manifold (2007) suggest ed selecting stories that offer small details to
serve as metaphors of overwhelmin g realitie s yet still answer why people come to inflict
suffering on one another. Metaph or can lead to new meaning and insight. It can activate deep
levels of imaginative understanding to make meaning of the world through the mutually
beneficial interrelationship of visual and linguistic rhythm. It is metaphoric stories that hold the
greatest capacity to offer multiple possible meanings that Benjamin (1955/1999) and Arendt
(1958/1998, 1970) acknowledged in storytelling.

61 In a study of the responses of young children to picture books that possess feminist
messages, Davies (2003) found that metaphoric stories (such as The Princess and the Dragon
and The Paperbag Princess ) as a genre can play a significant role in presenting shifting images .
However, Davies found in her research that the children invariably did not get the feminist
messages that she saw in the picture books. For example, in The Princess and the Dragon the
princess does not want to be a princess and counters the expected presentation of a princess by
being dirty and mean . To Davies, this story m etaphorically represented the freedom to be who
you want to be, yet the children had no sympathy for the princess at all and simply described her
as dirty and mean. Winner (1988) explain ed that th e capacity of metap hor to be affective lies
heavily in the framing of the metaphor within the familiar. To understand a metaphor one must
understand the qualities of each of the elements being linked, so if there are few familiar
references the metaphor is not recognis ed. Metaphoric stories can offer potential to shift
understandings of social justice issues, yet the elements that are referred to need to be well
understood by the audience for the effect of the metaphor to work.
Social justice storytelling in this study dr aws inspiration from a range of fields due to
minimal research on social jus tice storytelling in education. These include studies of: a) the
engagement of children with persona doll stories and social justice picture books, b) the
engagement of children with stories for moral education, c) counter stories in critical race theory,
and d) the engagement of children with metaphoric stories. The purpose and goals of social
justice storytelling in this study are informed by education for social change literature . My
practice of social justice storytelling is guided by literature on democracy in education, aesthetic
encounters, storytelling and storytelling as pedagogy, which combine to inform my practice of
social justice storytelling as pedagogy with young childr en. The idea of social justice storytelling
as pedagogy that provokes young children‘s active citizenship uses story as an agent of
sociali sation, which is a conscious and deliberate act. In this regard , Stephens (1992) argue d that
ideology is present. For this reason , my research values have been outlined explicitly in Chapter
3 to acknowledge subjectivity in my practice of social justice storytelling.
2.4 Making Connections Between Children, Citizenship and Pedagogy
Study of the possibilities for young ch ildren‘s active citizenship as provoked through a practice
of social justice storytelling has been informed by literature on children, citizenship and
pedagogy. Identification of various ways of viewing children was required in this study to
recognise the thinking that shapes theories, ideas, models and practice of children‘s citizenship.
Citizenship definitions, approaches and spaces along with democracy were examined to
understand the issues of citizenship broadly entwined in the debates that occur about notions of
children‘s citizenship. This led to recognition of conceptual and practical possibilities and
difficulties with the actualisation of participatory rights of children to citizenship. To inquire how
young children‘s active citizenship participatio n can be supported in early childhood education,

62
some teaching and learning practices were critiqued. To add to this foundational educational
context, specific pedagogical practices were explored to inform a practice of social justice
storytelling. These i ncluded democracy in education, education for social change, aesthetic
encounters, and storytelling. Discussion of these pedagogical practices provided understandings
of the qualities and possibilities that they offer for provoking and promoting young chil dren‘s
practice as active citizens.
This inquiry locates a notion of children‘s citizenship in early childhood education
with democracy in education, education for social change, aesthetic encounters, and storytelling.
Most of the literature and research on children‘s citizenship draws from sociological theories on
models of children and citizenship theories. The intention of this study was to marry sociological
ideas of citizenship with social justice storytelling through the ideas above to create an
educational space where possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship may be cultivated.
The next chapter discusses the theoretical foci of this study: practice, action, and narrative.

63 CHAPTER 3: PRACTICE, NARRATIVE, AND ACTION
In this chapter, I discuss three theoretical foci of this study: practice, action and narrative. These
theoretical foci are the foundations of this study and build understanding of the thinking that
shaped the study. Practice was a theoretical focus through investigation of my practice as a
storytelling teacher. Research was approached from the perspective of a practitioner through a
living educational theory approach to practitioner research (Whitehead & McNiff, 2006).
Narrative was a theoretical focus through my practice as a storytelling teacher being informed by
stories. Social justice stories were told to provoke citizenship action. The concepts of
metanarratives and counternarratives informed the intent and content of the social justice stories
told and offered a way to inform critique influences on young children‘s active citizenship.
Action followed as the third theoretical focus to explore possibilities for young children‘s active
citizenship. The theory of action espoused by Arendt (1958/1998) provided a means to defi ne
citizenship action.
To explain these three theoretical foci, practice is first discussed through explanations
of the ontological, epistemological, methodological, and pedagogical assumptions of a living
educational theory approach to practitioner rese arch (3.1). Second, narrative is discussed through
the concepts of metanarratives and counternarratives (3.2) as a way to identify influences on
possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship and ways to counter these influences. Third,
action is di scussed through Arendt‘s (1958/1998) theory of action (3.3) as a means to define
young children‘s active citizenship and read who young children might be as citizens. The
chapter concludes by defining the core values of the study (3.4) as informed by theor ies and
literature.
Figure 3.1 provides a diagram of how these three theoretical foci informed the study.
All three informed the ontology of the study, which is explained through declaration of the core
values of the study. The theoretical focus of pract ice through a living educational theory
approach to practitioner research (Whitehead & McNiff, 2006) broadly informed the ontology,
epistemology and methodology of the study. The concepts of metanarratives (Lyotard, 1984) and
counternarratives (Lankshear & Peters, 1996) specifically informed the design of the study,
intent and content of social justice storytelling, and analysis of influences and possibilities for
young children‘s active citizenship. Arendt‘s (1958/1998) theory of action was specifically
employed to define active citizenship and analysis of possibilities for young children‘s active
citizenship. Collectively, these theories and concepts brought clarification and meaning to the
study.

64

Figure 3.1. Map of the conceptual framework.

65 3.1 Practice: A Living Educational Theory Approach to Practitioner Research
A living educational theory approach to practitioner research is action researc h that involves
practitioners investigating their own practice and producing a living theory, that is, their own
explanations for what they are doing and why (Whitehead & McNiff, 2006; McNiff, 2007) . The
theory produced is living in the sense that it is fo rmed through living practice. A living
educational theory is constantly tested, reflected and amended through practice and is open to
new possibilities . it continu es to evolve in response to context as a living thing. Practice is seen
as ―real -life theoris ing‖ (p. 32). This approach is based on ontological understandings of an
inside and interrelational view of evolving processes of creation. These understandings shape
epistemological, methodological and pedagogical theoretical assumptions of this approach. This
section discusses sources of inspiration for this approach, ontological assumptions, and how
these assumptions shape the epistemological, methodological and pedagogical assumptions. It
concludes with how these theoretical assumptions apply to this st udy.
The ideas for a living educational theory approach to practitioner research draw from
the proposal of action research as critical educational science by Carr and Kemmis (1986), who
saw research as participatory. Participants in such research explore contradictions in the
consequences of educational practices as seen through moments of social solidarity and social
division. The theoretical underpinnings of critical educational science proposed by Carr and
Kemmis are based on the ideas of critical socia l science developed by Habermas (1974) with
core emphases of being human, social and political. Critical social science is understood as
human in that it involves active knowing by those engaged in practice. A living educational
theory approach to practiti oner research applies this understanding through practitioners creating
knowledge with others through reflection on practice. Critical social science is understood as
social in that dynamic social processes of communication and interaction influence practi ce. A
living educational theory approach to practitioner research is social as it and cannot occur in
isolation; it involves reflection on practice that is influenced by those who participate in the
practice. The combination of these human and social actio ns forms the political emphasis in
critical social science by acknowledging that what happens depends on how ways of knowing
and doing are influenced by historical and social conditions.
According to Habermas (1974), to engage in critical social science involves
democratic political theory about social life, political processes, and their effects on social life.
Critical social science seeks to recognise forces that have a negative impact on practice. In a
living educational theory approach, values are re cognised as influencing ways of knowing and
doing with a view to improving practice (Whitehead, 1989). These values are then aspirational.
Recognition of the influence of values in practice is based on an understanding that education is a
value -laden activ ity (W. Carr & Kemmis, 1986). Reflection on practice in living educational

66
theory identifies moments when historical and social conditions interfere with endeavours to
bring values alive in practice.
The ontological assumption of an inside view in practit ioner research imagines
existence with others, not as separate from others. This assumption draws from the ideas of
theory and practice proposed by Habermas (1974), who argued for the roles of practitioner and
researcher to merge. Habermas proposed collabo ration between practitioner -researcher and
participants, and practice and theory through processes of critique and critical praxis.
Practitioner -researchers and participants are seen to engage in doing research together. In a living
educational theory appr oach to practitioner research, the practitioner -researcher sees herself as
part of the lives of the participants with whom she conducts her practice.
The ontological assumption of an interrelational view sees all beings as connected. An
interrelational vi ew in a living educational theory approach to practitioner research draw s from
the suggestion that everything is linked through invisible ties with space and boundaries
(Bateson, 1972) and the idea of inclusionality (A. Rayner, 200 4). Rayner argued that al l
phenomena are related to each other, and metaphors of fluid and dynamic networks describe
these relations. In a living educational theory approach to practitioner research, the practitioner –
researcher belongs to and is part of an inclusive and relational universe.
The ontological assumption that people exist in ―constantly unfolding processes of
creation‖ (Whitehead & McNiff, 2006, p. 86) emphasis es creative processes rather than working
towards closure. Creative processes are understood as ―free, self -transforming, relational and
inclusive‖ (p. 86). This ontology is based on ideas from Polanyi (1958) and Chomsky (1986).
Polanyi acknowledged that all people possess a wealth of tacit knowledge. Chomsky suggested
that all people have boundless aptitude for the creation of language. On the basis of these ideas,
Whitehead and McNiff formed an understanding ―that people have infinite capacity for the
creation of new ways of thinking and acting‖ (p. 87). A living educational theory approach to
practitioner resea rch recognises the capacity of people to apply their embodied tacit knowledge
in creative processes with others to form living educational theories.
An ontology of existing with others interrelationally in processes of creation shapes the
epistemological ideas of the creation and testing of living educational theories. Whitehead and
McNiff (2006) saw all people as agentic in knowledge acquisition by creating their own
knowledge, drawing insights from the knowledge of others, and explaining influences on th eir
learning and others. Learning is understood as an evolving and creative process with others. A
living educational theory involves articulating what was learned and what happened during the
research process. The values of the practitioner -researcher for m the standards of judgment of the
claims of a study to knowledge. Knowledge is claimed through accounts of the consequences of
practice contradicting the values of the practitioner -researcher with explanations of influences in
the learning of the practiti oner-researcher and participants. Ways of knowing in a living

67 educational theory approach to practitioner research embrace the ontology of inclusion,
relationality and creative processes. The epistemological assumptions are inclusive and relational
in that theorists, and those with whom practitioner -researchers engage in practice, shape the
knowledge of the practitioner -researcher. The epistemology is understood to be creative and
relational as each person is thought to have capacity to make original contr ibutions in relation to
others in the creation and testing of living theories.
Methodologically, research approached from the perspective of a practitioner is
understood as existing with others, acknowledging the influence of others on systems of inquiry .
Greater status and agency is enabled for both practitioner -researchers and participants because of
the relational approach. Whitehead and McNiff (2006) argue against prescribed approaches to
action research that function as a form of performance manageme nt and welcome multiplicity in
the creation of new ways of thinking and acting. Practitioner -researchers devise diverse methods
of inquiry with participants to cultivate embodied knowledge into living theories. The
methodological assumptions e mbrace inclus ion, relationality, and creative processes by creating
knowledge with others through inquiry into practice in relation to others.
A living educational theory approach to practitioner research applied in educational
research also informs pedagogical assump tions of ―a deep sense of self and how we are in
relation to those whose studies we are supporting‖ (Whitehead & McNiff, 2006, p. 91).
Engagement in teaching and learning is seen as a process of deep relation with participants. To
Whitehead and McNiff, the pedagogical assumptions of a living educational theory approach
align with the ideas of Raz (2001) in which meaning is cultivated through attachments.
Attachment is theorised in terms of what Buber (1937) referred to as an ―I -thou‖ relationship,
that is, a familiar relationship. Pedagogy then involves a mutual sharing of identities. Teachers
and learners are not fenced separate identities; instead, there is fusion of identities as participants
engage in teaching and learning together. Whitehead and McNiff also applied Buber‘s idea of
attentive silence by giving full and undivided attention to dialogue so that dialogue of teaching
and learning is approached with a contemplative attitude. Whitehead and McNiff saw openness
to learning as reciprocal, with teach ers and students learning from each other. Collectively, the
pedagogical assumptions include close relationships, attentive listening, and reciprocal learning.
The idea of close relationships embraces the ontological assumption of existing with others. The
ideas of attentive listening and reciprocal learning embrace the ontological understandings of
relationality and creative processes, as all parties are seen to relate and create respectfully in the
processes of teaching and learning.
To summarise, a livi ng educational theory approach to practitioner research enables
research to be seen as the creation of knowledge with others from the inside as a practitioner. The
generation of personal theory is created rather than being moulded by the theory of others.
Personal voices of practitioner -researchers and participants are interwoven with the voice of the

68
academic community, as advocated by other action researchers (e.g., Atweh, Kemmis, & Weeks,
1998; McNiff, 2007; Stringer, 2004). The ontological assumptions o f a living educational theory
approach to practitioner research include: a) existence with others, b) all beings are
interconnected by responding and learning from each other, and c) people exist in constant
unfolding processes of creation. These inform ep istemological assumptions as creation of living
theory with others through critique of practice. Methodologically, inquiry examines the practice
of a practitioner -researcher in relation to others through dynamic creative processes of reflection,
practice, and the formation of living educational theories. Pedagogically, assumptions of close
relationships, attentive listening, and reciprocal learning are embraced to live the ontology of
existing with others in evolving processes of creation.
Based on these t heoretical underpinnings of living educational theory approach to
practitioner research, I approached this study as a practitioner existing with others. From this
position, I saw myself belonging to a community of learning through a practice of social just ice
storytelling with a class of young children, a teacher and a teacher aide. I saw that we were all
connected and that the phenomena in which we were engaged were interconnected. In my
practice of social justice storytelling I endeavoured to build famili ar relationships with children
by cultivating open and attentive spaces for sharing reciprocal learning. The participants (the
teacher, teacher aide and children) influenced my practice and reflection, just as I influenced their
actions and thoughts. We en gaged in creative processes of building on our tacit knowledge
through critique and reflection. Reflection and amendment of my practice generated evidence of
learning in a practice of storytelling. Analysis of children‘s engagement in a practice of social
justice storytelling identified how my practice influenced the learning of the children as active
citizens and possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship.
This study adopted a critical view of a living educational theory approach to
practitione r research. I sought to understand influences on my practice of social justice
storytelling and possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship. Both negative and positive
influences were recognised. My aspirational values were understood as an influ ence. In addition,
the concepts of metanarratives and counternarratives (Lyotard, 1984; Lankshear and Peters,
1996), and Arendt‘s (1958/1998) theory of action provided political theories to examine
processes and negative and positive effects on social lif e. These are discussed in section 3.2 and
3.3 respectively. The next section (3.2) explains how the concepts of metanarrative and
counternarrative informed the study and examined influences on possibilities for young
children‘s active citizenship.
3.2 Na rrative: Concepts of Metanarratives and Counternarratives
My research focus on narrative began with the idea of exploring my practice of social justice
storytelling. This was built on the understanding of story as a way of knowing (Arendt,
1958/1998, 1970 ; Benjamin, 1955/1999; Bruner, 1986; Nussbaum, 1997) that could provide a

69 means for young children to come to know social injustices and be motivated to act to redress
these injustices. It seemed conceptually consistent to then view influences on possibili ties for
young children‘s active citizenship participation in terms of narrative, that is, as ways of
knowing. In particular, the concepts of metanarratives and counternarratives offered ways of
examining political influences on possibilities for young chi ldren‘s active citizenship. This
section explains these concepts and the four ways they were applied in this study: a)
identification of metanarratives that influence young children‘s active citizenship participation,
b) informing the design of the study, c) the intent and content of social justice storytelling, and d)
identification of counternarratives to metanarratives of children and citizenship as possibilities
for young children‘s active citizenship.
The concept of metanarrative was defined by Lyotar d (1984) as a narrative that
legitimates knowledge. In his critique of modernism, Lyotard explained how metanarratives
shape knowledge and grow in strength having oppressive, exclusionary, and totalising effects as
they work to explain a concept rather tha n just tell the story of an event. The concept of
metanarrative was used broadly in this study to recognise universalistic and hegemonic ideology
(metanarratives) of children and citizenship.
Used in both critical and postmodern research, metanarratives w ere of interest in this
study from a critical perspective by acknowledging their continuing effect on adult views of
children and citizenship. Lyotard (1984) argued that metanarratives have declined or col lapsed in
the post -modern world . In critical theory , metanarratives are understood to have a hegemonic
impact on beliefs and practices and are used to justify acts of oppression. For example, critical
theorists such as Lukacs (1920/1967) and Marcuse (1964), viewed metanarratives as having a
false conscious ness effect. Metanarratives are understood to dominate the consciousness of
exploited groups through explanations of truths that justify and perpetuate their exploitation. A
critical understanding then positions capitalism and neoliberalism as metanarrativ es through the
totalising narratives that they project on ordering and explaining knowledge and experience . For
example, in metanarratives of neoliberalism, individuals are cast as self -made entrepreneurs
(Barnes, 1987, 1988) in persistent plots of wealth creation through production and property
acquisition. The totalising effect of this metanarrative disregards the negative impact on others
(e.g., dislocation from homeland), for the primacy of economic wealth creation. In this regard,
metanarratives are un derstood to ―conceal patterns of domination and submission‖ (Mishler,
1995, p.115). From a critical theory perspective, the identification of metanarratives offers a
significant process for understanding how oppression functions in society (Hoy & McCarthy,
1994) through the legitimation of hegemonic ideologies.
Examples of metanarratives of children as innocent and developing, and citizens as
good have a totalising effect on who children can be and what citizenship might be (see 2.1 and
2.2). Metanarrativ es also permeate traditional stories and children‘s literature according to

70
Stephens and McCallum (1998). They base their argument on the much higher proportion of
retold traditional stories in children‘s lit erature than general literature and a view that traditional
stories ―have the function of maintaining conformity to socially determined and approved
patterns of behaviour‖ (pp. 3 -4). Such approved behaviours are conveyed in stories through
positive role models and the condemning of unacceptable behaviou r, whilst affirming cultural
values, practices and establishments. For example, in traditional tales such as Cinderella and
Snow White, and classic children‘s novels such as Peter Pan and Coral Island ; being civilis ed,
good, and innocent are projected as a pproved behaviours . Widespread sharing of these stories
has a significant influence on shaping of children‘s understandings of expected social
behaviours . Traditional stories and much of children‘s literature then, perpetuate metanarratives
of children and citizenship .
The concept of metanarrative was applied in this study through identification of
metanarratives that influence possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship participation. It
provided a way to define and recognise the influence of g rand stories or dominating ideologies of
children and citizenship. Answers were sought to the research question, ―What indicators point to
metanarratives that influence young children‘s active citizenship? ‖ Through identification of
metanarratives the cons equences of hegemonic influences on children and citizenship were
recognised.
The idea of counternarratives offered a means to make visible the dominating and
exploitative effects of metanarratives . As described in 2.3.7, counternarratives are small local ised
narratives that provide accounts of individual experiences of exploitation. Informed by
explanations from Lankshear and Peters (1996), this study employed counternarratives to
cultivate critical awareness of the effects of metanarratives for participa ting children .
Counternarratives to metanarratives of children and citizenship were also identified in young
children‘s active citizenship practice. Used in this way, th e concept of counternarrative supported
the commitment of cr itical theory to social jus tice by making the exploitation or marginalisation
visible that is concealed in metanarratives. My intention through social justice storytelling was to
offer a broader view of humanity to young children, and welcome diversity of experience in
citizenship . The inter -relationship between metanarratives and counternarratives aligns with the
ontology of interrelated existence with others in a living educational t heory of practitioner
research. Metanarratives and counternarratives enable recognition of negative influence s on
practice .
The design of the study was informed by what Lankshear and Peters (1996) refer to as
the first dimension of counternarratives: to ―function generically as a critique of the modernist
predilection for ‗grand‘, ‗master‘ and ‗meta‘ na rratives‖ (p. 2). In this way, counternarratives
disturb the legitimacy of metanarratives. The provision of a program that viewed young children
as politically and rationally capable of dialoguing on social justice issues and participating as

71 active citize ns was a small but intentional act to disturb metanarratives of childhood innocence
and impulsivity.
This second dimension of counternarratives provided a useful story genre to create
space for dialogue and action on social justice issues in the study. In this dimension,
counternarratives act by countering ―legitimate stories propagated for specific political purposes
to manipulate public consciousness by heralding a national set of common cultural ideals‖
(Lankshear & Peters, 1996, p. 2). The use of coun ter stories in critical race theory to challenge
dominant race ideologies and myths (see 2.3.7) is an example of this second dimension of
counternarratives. Counternarratives defined in this way provide alternative and diverse
positions, which can contribu te to critical awareness and a broader humanitarian outlook.
To Stephens and McCallum (1998), metanarratives in traditional children‘s literature can
be challenged through introduction of counternarratives or modifications of metanarratives. The
way that counternarratives or modified metanarratives are told requires careful consideration of
the register that the teller selects as the ground for how the story and its significance are
communicated. This involves consideration of the elements of field (i.e., subject matter or
situation), tenor (i.e., relationships), and modality (i.e., point of view and focalisation or origin of
perspective). All of these factors shape how the story is told and the meaning and values it
conveys. To redress metanarratives of re told traditional stories, Stephens and McCallum suggest
altering the modes of representation, the point of view, and textual self -reflexiveness to make
visible how some traditional stories suppress the invisible, untold and unspoken. For example,
pirates a re frequently positioned as evil in comparison to the innocent child and good citizen in
traditional children‘s stories. To redress metanarratives of innocent child and good citizen, tales
can be told by focalising or emphasising acts by children that chal lenge views of citizenship and
childhood as obedience. This suggestion of attention to the register of retold stor ies provide d
points of consideration for telling counternarratives in a practice of social justice storytelling.
Stories were told of individu al and group experiences of injustice that countered and exposed
consequences of metanarratives.
The concept of counternarrative was also applied in the study through analysis of the
children‘s participation to recognis e and describe individual experienc es of young children‘s
active citizenship. Individual experiences were recognised as counternarratives to metanarratives
of children (e.g., child as innocent, child as developing) and citizenship (e.g., citizen as good) .
This application of counternarrativ es provided openings to further possibilities for young
children‘s active citizenship.
Together, the concepts of metanarratives and counternarratives were used to examine
political influences on possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship as prov oked through a
practice of social justice storytelling. In this study I sought to recognise metanarratives and
employ counternarration in the four ways discussed. Although they have been explained in this

72
order to enable understanding of the concepts of me tanarrative and counternarrative, this was not
the methodological order in which they were applied. First, the metanarrative of young children
as pre -political and irrational was countered through a practice of storytelling that engag ed with
young children as capable of questioning, theorising and acting on social justice issues. Second ,
counternarratives of individual experiences of subjugation were told, making visible
consequences of metanarratives of capitalism and neoliberalism . Third, data were analys ed for
indicators of metanarratives of children and citizenship to build understandings of the influence
of such metanarratives on possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship participation.
Fourth, examples of young children‘s active citizenship participation were recognised as offering
counternarratives or countering possibilities to the metanarratives of children and citizenship.
Collectively, these four applications of the concepts of metanarratives and counternarratives
enabled a critical inve stigation of young children‘s active citizenship provoked through social
justice storytelling. The following section discusses the theoretical focus of action as provoked
through narrative.
3.3 Action: Arendt‘s Theory of Action
In this study I examined th e engagement of young children in action as citizens. As discussed in
Chapter 1, the theory of action espoused by Arendt (1958/1998) offered a means to define and
understand the processes of action in active citizenship. In Chapter 2, this theory of action was
understood as political, as Arendt‘s conception of democratic action supported agency with
others. Arendt‘s theory of action was used in this study for political purposes. In this theory,
speech and action are understood as conditions of political lif e, that is, human practices of living
with others. Emphasis is placed on interactions between people and an understanding of
humanity as a web of relationships . Such emphasis yielded a means to explore political processes
in possibilities for young childre n‘s active citizenship. This section explains the definitions of
action and speech developed by Arendt and how together they form stories of who people are.
Connections between a living educational theory approach to practitioner research and Arendt‘s
theory of action are also explained.
To Arendt (1958/1998), action is about beginning something new in the world, public
realm or polis (as distinguished from our internal and personal spaces) , and speech consists of the
spoken words that articulate an initia ted action of setting something in motion. The impulse for
action comes from wanting to begin something new and emerges unexpectedly from what has
happened before. Action differs from that of routine actions (such as eating, washing and
cleaning), which co nsume most of our day as these are either work or labour. Actions do not
exist in isolation: instead, ―they fall into an already existing web where their immediate
consequences can be felt‖ (p. 184). In Arendt‘s theory, actions are recognised as affecting others,
yet the effect is invariably not what the initiator intended because of conflicting wills and
intentions in the web of human relationships in the polis . If an initiator tries to control how others

73 respond to her action, or if individuals block others‘ opportunit ies to begin , agency is denied .
Arendt advocated for worldly care for the public realm, where initiated actions are enacted with
consideration for others. This understanding of action seemed workable in possibilities for young
children‘s acti ve citizenship through recognition that young children would be motivated to
begin something new in response to the stories told in this study. In addition, Arendt‘s emphasis
on actions with others aligns with the ontology of an interrelated existence with others in a living
educational theory approach to practitioner research.
Used together, action and speech form a life story according to Arendt (1958/1998).
Action with speech inserted into the public realm and subjected to unpredictable and
uncontrollab le responses produces stories. If action s were responded to predictably there would
be new stories, as they would not hold attention through anticipating the unexpected. Action
starts a new process , which in time emerges as a ―unique life story of a newcom er affecting
uniquely the life stories of all those with who [s]he comes into contact‖ (p. 184). To Arendt,
account s of the actions people initiate tell more about the person than any tangible product
produced by the person. Everything else only offers und erstandings of what the subject or active
agent is. Actions and speech show who people are, that is, ―the unique and distinct identity of the
agent‖ (p. 180). According to Arendt, we can only know who somebody is by knowing the story
in which she or he is the hero . The place of story in this theory of action is explained through an
examination of courage.
The connotation of courage, which we now feel to be an indispensable quality of the
hero, is in fact present in the willingness to act and speak at all, to insert oneself into the
world and begin a story of one‘s own. (p. 186)
Those who have the courage to start something new are seen as heroes in their own stor ies.
Actions then tell about who the heroes are, thereby exposing deeper understandings of quali ties
of humanity. This view suggests that a person‘s activity emanates from the core of her being.
The idea that action and speech inserted into the public realm forms stories of courage offered a
means to read young children‘s initiated actions in the pub lic realm as life stories of young
children‘s active citizenship. Further to this, these understandings align with the ontology of
people existing in evolving processes of creation in a living educational theory approach to
practitioner research.
The sugg estion of young children initiating actions with others as being political
differs from the ideas of Arendt (1977) developed in The Crisis in Education . In this essay she
argue d against children having a political identity and for education as separate fro m political
life. Arendt stressed that children ought to remain in the private realm, protected during
childhood, as it is a time of concealment and preparation. Biesta (2010) read this view of children
and education as suggest ive of being defined within a psychological paradigm shaped by terms
such as ―development‖, ―preparation‖, ―identity‖, and ―control‖ (Introduction, Para 4) . To

74
Arendt, where education ends and politics begin is a temporal distinction between childhood and
adulthood. It is possible tha t metanarratives of children and education at the time shaped
Arendt‘s claim for this temporal distinction and exclusion of children from politics. In this study,
I viewed children as agentic and entitled to participate in the public realm. Like Biesta (20 07,
2010), I see that Arendt‘s view of initiating actions among others as being political offers a
definition of being political that can include children‘s participation. The definition of being
political as having the courage to initiate new beginnings w ith others is possible for children. It
offers scope for children and adults to co -exist politically and learn from these attempts of
political co -existence. Even though Arendt may not have support ed a notion of children engaging
in the political, her conc eption of the political provided a means to read political possibilities for
young children‘s active citizenship.
In conclusion, Arendt‘s (1958/1998) theory of action offered two ways to read
possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship, which are presented in Figure 3.1 . The
definition of action as political activity informed how active citizenship was viewed in this study.
This was applied firstly by identifying children‘s initiated social actions that aim to redress
injustices and how these ac tions exist with others as political active citizenship. Second, these
actions and accompanying commentaries were interpreted as life stories that describe who young
children might be as active citizens. Together these two applications of Arendt‘s theory o f action
informed analysis of possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship.
3.4 Core Values of the Study
The above theoretical foci of practice, action and narrative informed the core values of the study.
The study was shaped by five core ontolog ical values of agency, interconnectivity,
responsiveness, multiplicity, and practice. These beliefs of the nature of being in turn informed
my epistemological, methodological, and pedagogical values. Collectively, they represented
what was important to my practice as a storytelling teacher and researcher. In my practice, I
endeavoured to be agentic and respect others‘ multiple and diverse ways of exercising agency,
acknowledging the interconnectivity of our responses to each other. These values of agency,
interconnectivity, responsiveness, multiplicity and practice are proposed as the standards of
judgment for the quality of this thesis. The theories discussed in this chapter to address the
research concerns of practice, action, and narrative embrace these v alues. In a living educational
theory approach to practitioner research, practitioners are agentic because they create knowledge
in multiple ways through practice with others in an interconnected and responsive world. To
Arendt (1958/1998), people are unde rstood as agentic by initiating actions (practice) that are
responsive to others in a web of relationships (interconnectivity). The concepts of metanarratives
and counternarratives are interconnected, with counternarratives constructed in response to
metan arratives. Counternarratives challenge universalism by welcoming diversity and
multiplicity through sharing individual stories of those who have been marginalised. Sharing

75 counternarratives provides space for those who have been marginalised or silenced to be visible,
heard, and therefore agentic. Application of these theories aided attempts to bring these values
into practice. T he sources of belief that shape d my practice as a storytelling teacher and
researcher are discussed respectively in the following subsections of agency (3.4.1),
interconnectivity (3.4.2), responsiveness (3.4.3), multiplicity (3.4.4) and practice (3.4.5).
3.4.1 Agency
Ontologically, all participants were understood to possess the capacity to be social agents. Ideas
of agency were bas ed on the explanations of Arendt (1958/1998) that humans are agentic when
they initiate actions with others in responsive and considerate ways. This ontological value of
agency shaped the epistemology, methodology and pedagogy of this study. E pistemologica lly,
all participants were viewed as instrumental in cultivating ways of knowing. Methodologically,
both practitioners and participants were seen as agentic in the research process through critical
thinking, making choices and engaging in and reflecting on actions. These epistemological and
methodological views were drawn from the theoretical underpinnings of a living educational
theory approach to practitioner research (Whitehead & McNiff, 2006). Pedagogically, children
were recognised as agentic by being viewed as possessing political identities (Kulnych, 2001)
with the right and capacity to voice opinions, make decisions and participate. In addition,
children were seen to actively construct learning and understanding as agentic creators of
knowledge. Thes e pedagogical assumptions were informed by ideas of socio -cultural theory
(e.g., Vygotsky, 1978), which sees learning as an active process with others and the social
conception of democracy in education espoused by Dewey (1916).
3.4.2 Interconnectivity
An ontological view of all beings and matter as interconnected shaped the epistemology,
methodology and pedagogy of the study. This view was informed by the theoretical
underpinnings of a living educational theory approach to practitioner research (Whitehea d &
McNiff, 2006), which drew from the works of Bateson (1972) and Rayner (2004). Appreciation
of people existing in a web of relationships (Arendt, 1958/1998) also informed the ontological
view of interconnectivity. Epistemologically, I understood knowled ge and processes of knowing
to be in constant flux through interconnectivity with others (e.g., children, practitioners,
academics, theorists and writers), as informed by the understanding that knowledge is created by
drawing insights from the knowledge of others (Whitehead & McNiff). In addition, live oral
storytelling nurtured an intimate way of knowing with others by building connections between
teller and listener, and characters and events in the story. The writings of Arendt, (1958/1998),
Benjamin (19 55/1999) and Kristeva (2001) on the ability of storytelling to cultivate relationships
with others shaped this understanding of story as an intimate and interconnected way of
knowing. Methodologically, all elements of research were seen as interconnected, drawing from

76
the relational view of a living educational theory approach to practitioner research (Whitehead &
McNiff). Pedagogically, children‘s learning was understood as interconnected by recognising
links between each theme of social justice explored. This was informed by the emergent
curriculum practice of webbing pathways of children‘s learning (Jones & Nimmo, 1994).
3.4.3 Responsiveness
A value of responsiveness is intertwined with a value of interconnectivity. A view of everything
as interconnected sees matter and beings responding to each other. This view was drawn from
Arendt‘s (1958/1998) theory of action, in which initiated actions are responsive to others in a
web of relationships. Epistemologically, all people were recognised as creators of kn owledge
that is responsive to the knowledge of others (children, practitioners, academics, theorists and
writers). Methodologically, all participants were seen to be responsive to context and events
through processes of creating, extending, amending and ap praising. Both these epistemological
and methodological perspectives were informed by a living educational theory approach to
practitioner research (Whitehead & McNiff, 2006), which sees practitioners respond to others in
knowledge creation through reflect ion and amendment of practice. Pedagogically, teaching and
learning were viewed as responsive interaction and based on the ideas of Freire (1970, 1973,
1974, 1985, 1998) and Dewey (1916). From Freire, I adopted a view of pedagogy as a two -way
exchange of s eeing , listening , wondering and dialogue. From Dewey, I adopted a view of
democratic practice in education, in which group members freely interact, change, and adjust in
response to their engagement with each other and external influences.
3.4.4 Multiplic ity
This study was approached with an ontological view that there are many ways of being.
Multiplicity was welcomed in opinions, choices, and ways of participating. The idea of
counternarratives (Lyotard, 1984; Lankshear & Peters, 1996) supports such an on tological view
through the proactive sharing of stories that counter a universal view of being, and offers
multiplicity in ways of being. Epistemologically, story was perceived as cultivating multiple
ways of knowing and communicating , with each person hav ing their own interpretation of a
story shaped by their social and cultural context. This perspective was informed by the
suggestion from Benjamin (1955/1999) that good storytelling cultivates the possibilities of
multiple interpretations. Methodologically , diverse methods for diverse purposes welcomed
multiplicity, and worked to create new ways of thinking and acting ( Whitehead & McNiff,
2006). Pedagogically, aesthetic encounters of storytelling, drawing, dancing, and construction
offered multiple modes fo r learning and teaching, freedom of expression, multiplicity in
meaning, sensory and emotive connection. Such understandings of aesthetic encounters were
drawn from acknowledgment and appreciation of the multiplicity of perspectives that the sensory
and em otive qualities of aesthetic encounters can enable (Abbs, 1989; Greene, 1995).

77 3.4.5 Practice
This study began with an interest in exploring my practice as a storytelling teacher. A value for
practice was present from the beginning. This foregrounded me as a practitioner in the research.
A living educational theory approach to practitioner research (Whitehead & McNiff, 2006)
endorses ontological values of practice, cultivating insider views of engaging in practice with
others, which in turn influenced the epistemology and methodology. Epistemologically, critical
reflection of practice was seen to bring wisdom of what constrains and supports ways of
knowing in a lived context. Methodologically, research of practice enabled practitioner
understandings of liv ed experiences, creating living educational theories. Pedagogically, all
elements of practice were considered through careful planning and critical reflection based on the
notion that practitioners possess deep knowledge of practice to contribute to resear ch (Hawkins,
1966; Malaguzzi, 1993). Approached as a practitioner, this study foregrounded practice in the
epistemology, methodology and pedagogy of the study.
The values of agency, interconnectivity, responsiveness, multiplicity, and practice
permeated h ow possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship provoked through a practice
of social justice storytelling were approached. A living educational theory approach to
practitioner research cultivated a perspective of existing with others, which invol ved creating
knowledge with others in multiple ways within a responsive and interconnected climate.
Application of Arendt‘s (1958/1998) theory of action enabled recognition of agency through
actions being initiated and responded to by others in a web of re lationships. The concept of
counternarratives introduced multiplicity in understandings of humanity that embraced agency,
interconnectivity and responsiveness. These values are woven throughout this thesis.
3.5 Conclusion
The theories of practice, action, and narrative discussed in this chapter informed and shaped the
investigation of possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship provoked through a practice
of social justice storytelling. A living educational theory approach to practitioner researc h
enabled the perspective of a practitioner . This perspective enabled identification of influences of
learning in my practice, and in the learning of possibilities for young children‘s active
citizenship. The concepts of metanarratives and counternarrative s were applied in four ways: a)
identification of metanarratives that influence young children‘s active citizenship participation,
b) informing the design of the study, c) the intent and content of social justice storytelling, and d)
identification of coun ternarratives to metanarratives of children and citizenship as possibilities
for young children‘s active citizenship. Arendt‘s (1958/1998) theory of action enabled two ways
to read possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship participation. These included a
definition of active citizenship as initiating actions with others, and interpretation of these actions
and accompanying commentaries as stories of citizenship practice that describe who young

78
children might be as citizens. In conclusion, practi ce, narrative, and action formed three
theoretical foci that thread through this inquiry into possibilities for young children‘s active
citizenship provoked through a practice of social justice storytelling. The methodological
processes employed in this in quiry are discussed in the following chapter.

79 CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY
This chapter discusses the methodology used in this study. A living educational theory approach
to practitioner research (Whitehead & McNiff, 2006) provided a systematic form of inqui ry to
explore what is of prime importance to me and my practice: storytelling and the inclusion of
young children as active citizens in the public realm. Both a practice of social justice storytelling
and possibilities for young children‘s active citizensh ip could be investigated through a living
educational theory approach to practitioner research by questioning, reflecting and amending
practice to form explanations of influence in practice, ― in the learning of others, and in the
learning of social formati ons‖ ( Whitehead & McNiff, p. 68). The preposition in is purposefully
used to convey the inside and interrelational view of a living educational theory approach . In the
context of this study, the practice of inquiry is my practice of social justice storytel ling with a
Prep class. The ‗learning of others‘ in this inquiry is the participation of young children as active
citizens, and the ‗learning of social formation s‘ is the exploration of possibilities for young
children‘s active citizenship. To conduct this inquiry, data were collected and analysed for
meaning to generate evidence to form living educational theories about social justice storytelling
and young children‘s active citizenship. The processes employed are explained to ensure the
rigour and validit y of the research.
This chapter begins with explanations of a living educational theory approach to
practitioner research as the methodology for the study (4.1). Research with children (4.2), the
research design (4.3), systematic methods of data collectio n (4.4), and analysis (4.5) are then
detailed. This is followed by explanations of how quality (4.6) and ethics (4.7) were addressed.
To conclude the chapter, descriptions of the study site and participants provide an understanding
of the context (4.8) alo ng with initial analytical findings through identification of themes in the
data of children‘s participation (4.9). These details of the research location, participants and
themes set the scene for the subsequent analysis chapters (Chapters 5, 6 and 7). Th is is especially
important for a study about storytelling; as Kristeva (2001) noted, a story cannot be fully
understood without an understanding of its context.
4.1 Methodology: A Living Educational Theory Approach to Practitioner
Research
A living educat ional theory approach to practitioner research is a type of action research as noted
in 3.1. Action research was selected to enable active participation and intervention as a
practitioner -researcher in the study. Generally, action research is considered an ideal research
methodology for practitioner research in that the dual roles of practitioner and researcher can be
performed (Brown & Jones, 2001; Reason & Bradbury, 2006; Whitehead & McNiff, 2006). In
this study, I performed the dual roles of storytelling teacher and researcher. Through a practice of
social justice storytelling, I collaborated and participated with a class of young children, the

80
teacher, and teacher aide to research possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship. Active
involvement in both practice and research enabled fulfilment of what Dick (2000) defined as
three key qualities of action research: responsiveness, flexibility, and action. As an active
participant my aim was to engage in action by creating and facilitating a social j ustice
storytelling program that both initiated and responded to the comments and actions of the
children and teacher, to explore what was important to the children about social justice issues.
The flexibility of action research allowed both practitioner -researcher and participant
contributions to steer the direction of the study.
A living educational theory approach to practitioner research (Whitehead & McNiff,
2006), was selected as the methodology for this study because of its theoretical underpinnings (as
discussed in 3.1), for the method of inquiry it offers, and the scope for what Dadds and Hart
(2001) referred to as methodological inventiveness. Dadds and Hart claimed that a practitioner‘s
choice of methodology and control of how she conducts resear ch is just as important as her
choice of research topic ―to their motivation, their sense of identity within the research and their
research outcomes‖ (p. 166). On the basis of this understanding, Dadds and Hart suggested that it
is important for practitio ners ―to create inquiry approaches that enable new understandings…that
empower practitioners to improve their work for the beneficiaries in their care‖ (p.166). The idea
of a living educational theory approach to practitioner research offers a means to add ress
methodological inventiveness. Whitehead (2009a) proposed that researchers could develop their
own living theory methodology by combining, drawing insights from, and going beyond the
major qualitative research approaches, such as those identified by Cr eswell (2007) of narrative
research, phenomenography, grounded theory, ethnography, and case study. The following
defines how a methodology of a living educational theory approach to practitioner research was
applied in this study.
Application of a living educational theory approach to practitioner research involved
generating explanations of educational influences in my learning from practice, in the learning of
young children as active citizens, and in the learning of possibilities for young children‘s a ctive
citizenship. Learning was understood as a process of evolving and creating, not as an outcome.
The identification of learning in my practice involved recognising that my values did not flow
fully into practice; plans were made, enacted, and reflected upon as endeavours to live my values
more fully in practice and to learn from practice. Explanations of influence on my learning
created living theories of social justice storytelling and young children‘s active citizenship.
The methodology involved refl ection -in-action and reflection -on-action as discussed
by Schon (1983) in practitioner research. I reflected and amended my practice whilst in action
and afterwards on numerous occasions, such as later that day, with others in interviews, days
later when p lanning the next workshop, and when transcribing, analysing, and writing up this
thesis. The focus of my reflections was to create and facilitate a practice that provoked

81 possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship. According to Carr and Kemmis ( 1986), the
practice of action research involves ―self -reflective enquiry undertaken by participants in social
situations in order to improve the rationality and justice of their own practices, their
understandings of these practices, and the situations in which the practices are carried out‖ (p.
162). My reflections were concerned with the rationality and justice of my practice in terms of
creating possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship.
Reflection informed subsequent plans and actions that were observed and reflected
upon, as is the typical case in action research (W. Carr & Kemmis, 1986; Creswell, 2005;
MacNaughton & Hughes, 2009; Stringer, 1999). The action research cyclical process of plan, act
and reflect occurred on a weekly basis by pl anning the intervention of the workshops (i.e., the
stories, discussion, and activities), through the action of the workshops, and observation and
reflection in and on the workshops. The research journey was mapped during data collection,
plotting the inte rconnectivity and multiplicity of themes to produce a vision of multiple
interconnected possibilities and interrelated learning. Unintended praxis was charted and
connections across the study mapped. This practice was informed by a relational view of
resea rch that is encompassed in a living educational theory approach to practitioner research
through application of the idea that phenomena are interconnected (Bateson, 1972; A. Rayner,
2004). By plotting interconnectivity between interrelated themes, three cl usters of weekly cycles
were defined by different foci in the stories and discussions. Diagrams of these clusters are
included in Chapter 5.
A living educational theory approach to practitioner research produced unique
explanations of educational influenc es in my learning of social justice storytelling and
possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship. The methodology began with defining the
research problem and questions (as discussed in Chapter 1). A common focus of inquiry in
studies that apply this methodology is the improvement of practice (Whitehead & McNiff, 2006;
Whitehead, 2009a, 2009b). The objectives of this study did not seek to measure improvement or
growth, but rather to further understand social justice storytelling as pedagogy and po ssibilities
for young children‘s active citizenship participation. My interest lay in seeking ways to provoke
and promote possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship and a greater awareness of the
complexities of notions of young children‘s activ e citizenship, which was guided by my research
foci, values, and the children‘s responses. The focus was how young children responded to my
practice; the influences of my practice in possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship.
Evidence of such l earning was generated through sourcing data that suggested influence of a
practice of social justice storytelling in young children‘s active citizenship. The intent was not to
demonstrate a cause and effect relationship between my practice and the children ‘s comments
and actions. My practice of social justice storytelling was the vehicle employed to provoke
learning in possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship. Research then involved observing

82
and monitoring young children as active citizens in relation to how they responded to my
practice of social justice storytelling. Recounts of the study in Chapters 5, 6, and 7 present claims
to a greater understanding of my practice, and possibilities for young children‘s active
citizenship.
The process of explaining influences in my learning through practice produced living
theories based on the claim made by Whitehead and McNiff (2006) that practitioner action
researchers are capable of ―making significant contributions to quality theory‖ (p. 5). Living
educational theories were composed of my unique explanations of the influences in my learning,
which included the creation of knowledge with the children, the teacher, teacher aide, my
supervisors, other practitioners, academics, and theorists. Whitehead (2 000) claimed that the
inclusion of I in explanations of a practitioner‘s learning in living educational theories signifies a
practitioner‘s educative influence with students. By using ‗I‘, subjectivity was foregrounded
along with self -accountability and re sponsibility for the research process. Educational influences
in my learning were explained by engaging with issues of theory and practice and my
ontological, epistemological, methodological, and pedagogical values (defined in 3.4).
According to Whitehead and McNiff (2006), clear statements of the values of the practitioner –
researcher provide a way to state what is important to the researcher and are proposed as the
standards of judgment of quality. Carr and Kemmis (1986) also argued that ―any educational
theory worthy of the name cannot rest content with providing value -neutral theoretical accounts,
but must be able to confront questions about practical educational values and goals‖ (p. 99).
Through explicit statements of my values and actively reflecting o n the influence of my values
throughout the thesis, reflexivity was addressed. I composed living educational theories by
questioning moments in which my practice contradicted my values and seeking ways to amend
practice to live my values. Living theories e volved through engagement in a social justice
storytelling practice with a Prep class as I endeavoured to influence possibilities for their
participation in active citizenship.
A living educational theory approach to practitioner research (Whitehead & McNiff,
2006) provided a way to gather and interpret data systematically and generate evidence of
learning in a practice of social justice storytelling, young children as active citizens, and
possibilities for young children as active citizens. Detailed ex planations of the process of analysis
through a living educational theory approach are provided in section 4.3. Explanations of my
learning in practice are told in Chapter 5, and explanations of learning in possibilities for young
children‘s active citizen ship are told in Chapters 6 and 7.
4.2 Research with Children
In this study my research as a practitioner was undertaken with children. The children were
seen as social actors. From this understanding, I engaged with the children as active subjects
and not objects of inquiry (Christensen & James, 2008). The inquiry involved collaboration

83 with a class of children and their teacher, with their contributions steer ing the direction of
the study . Care was taken to explain the inquiry in accessible language, seek children‘s
consent, l isten to the children‘s views and suggestions , clearly communicat e research
procedures and be sensitiv e to children‘s queries and concerns about participation . These
practices were implemented in respect for children‘s right to voice and active participation.
My research sought to identify what it can mean for young children to be active
citizens. I wanted to learn from children about their lives. To do this I selected ways that
were familiar and meaningful to children for consultati on, such as storytelling, group
discussions, play activities and conversations. However, the act of recognising the power
imbalance between adult researcher and child participant does not mean that this is easily
shifted and, for the most part, power remai ned mostly with the researcher. My influence in
the study cannot be denied, particularly as my storytelling practice was an explicit act of
research intervention. Though I sought to learn more about young children‘s experiences of
citizenship, their contri butions to the inquiry were interpreted by myself, an adult researcher.
The way I s ee the world shaped how I heard the children‘s comments and how I saw them
acting upon social injustices.
4.3 Research Design
To explore possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship with a Prep class, a study was
designed that consisted of a series of weekly social justice storytelling workshops. Ideas for
stories, questions, and activities for the workshops and interviews were created, enacted,
reflected on, and a mended on a weekly basis, as guided by my reflections on the children‘s and
teacher‘s responses to the workshops. The workshops were organised into three clusters,
distinguished by different foci of justice. The duration of the study was not predetermined; as in
action research, attention was on the present and no neat conclusive endpoint was envisioned
(Whitehead & McNiff, 2006). The workshops occurred once per week. The first cluster lasted
five weeks and the subsequent two clusters lasted four weeks each . There were reflective weeks
between each cluster of workshops (see Appendix A).
The action research process of planning, action, and reflection occurred on a weekly
basis in the weeks of the storytelling workshops. I planned the stories and workshops b ased on
discussions with the children and the teacher along with my reflections of the preceding
workshop. The storytelling workshops were the action. I began the storytelling workshops by
telling a purposefully crafted story to provoke critique of social justice issues (Appendices D to
M are transcripts of the storytelling of each of the 10 stories). After the storytelling, the teacher
and I co -facilitated a critical discussion of the story based on a community of inquiry approach
(Lipman, 1988) in which c hildren and adults dialogue to search out the problematic borders of
puzzling concepts. Further interaction with the story occurred in small group activities where the
children explored the stories by drawing, sculpting/building, dancing, and developing so cial

84
actions to redress injustices (see Appendix B). Such play -based activities were included as they
are understood to be an accessible means for pre -literate children to contribute data (Hart, 1997).
These small group activities provided space for aesthe tic engagement to process affective
responses (Greene, 1995) to the stories. Small group activities also provided space for the
children to engage in active citizenship through by enacted social actions to redress injustices.
Enactment of social actions oc curred in the small group activity time in support of the ideas of
rational autonomy (Kant 1784/1992), with the children making participation choices. Self –
selected participation in social actions also aided identification of influences in young children‘s
active citizenship. All participants contributed to critical reflection on the workshops, through
follow -up conversations, and the summative/reflective workshops held in weeks five and nine.
Two to three days after each storytelling workshop, I visited th e class to gain feedback about the
workshop through separate follow -up conversations with the teacher and a group of five to six
self-nominated children. I reflected on the feedback from these conversations with the teacher
and the children, and data of pr eceding workshops to identify points of interest and concern that
warranted further exploration to guide the crafting of the following week‘s story, critical
discussion, and extension activities.
No new story was told in workshops five and nine; instead, these workshops provided
further space for children to contribute their views on the stories told in that cluster through
drama, drawing, and construction. The intent of these workshops was to provide more space for
children to explore and respond to the ideas in the stories. In the last workshop (week 13), the
children told me stories individually, in pairs or in groups of three. This required two visits to
record all of their stories. The children were invited to tell me stories as a meaningful and
famil iar way to convey their thoughts and feelings about the influence of my practice of social
justice storytelling. This opportunity for children to tell stories was offered as a way of sharing
the role of storyteller.
On completion of the storytelling works hops, a final conversation was shared with the
teacher to discuss overall reflections on the workshops. Two unplanned interviews also took
place: one with Molly, Ella, and Fergie to inquire how they formed the story they told in the last
workshop and anoth er with the teacher aide to gain her observations of the children‘s
participation throughout the study. Appendix A provides a dated schedule of the storytelling
workshops , conversations and interviews.
4.4 Data Collection
Data were collected from differ ent sources using diverse methods to produce evidence to address
the research question. The storytelling workshops were video recorded and audio recorded to
produce data of possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship provoked through a practice
of social justice storytelling. In accordance with the recommendation of Whitehead and McNiff
(2006), data were gathered to monitor my actions and learning and to monitor the actions and

85 learning of others (in this case the class of children). My actions an d learning were documented
through my plans, facilitation, and reflections of the workshops. The actions and learning of the
children were recorded in transcripts of the workshops and interviews/conversations with the
teacher, children, and teacher aide. T o demonstrate evolving developments, data were gathered
over time, as recommended by Whitehead and McNiff. A range of data was gathered to
construct a story of what happened in the study. The data sources included the storytelling
workshops, interviews wit h participants, written communications, and my reflective journaling.
Multiple and diverse data sources diminished the possibility of one perspective shaping the
direction of the study and portrayed ―the complexities and richness of people‘s lived
experien ces‖ (MacNaughton & Hughes, 2009, p. 156).
To build rapport with the children participating in the study, I drew from my
experience as an early childhood teacher of knowing how to fit into the context of an early years
class. I was introduced to the chil dren as a storyteller, setting the tone for the research so that the
children came to know me as someone who told stories and was interested in talking about
stories. I frequently conversed with the children before and after the storytelling workshops to
build trust and rapport.
This section (4.4) provides an overview of data collection. First, details of the story
transcripts and workshop plans as the devices designed to generate data are provided (4.4.1).
Then the range of data sources and methods appli ed are detailed. They include data collection at
workshops (4.4.2), interviews with the teacher (4.4.3), follow -up conversations with children
(4.4.4), written communications (4.4.5), and a reflective journal (4.4.6).
4.4.1 Story Transcripts and Workshop Plans
The stories told and workshop plans were devices designed for generating data. Between each
storytelling workshop I spen t considerable time reflecting on data from the workshop held in the
previous week to form the story transcript and workshop plan for the subsequent week . Common
concerns in the children‘s comments and actions to the stories were identified by coding the data.
The subsequent story was crafted to address identified common concerns yet offered an
alternative position. After I source d or create d a story, I wr ote a transcript of the story (and
devised how to tell it) and a plan for the workshop. The workshop plan included the story,
possible questions for critical discussion after the story, and possible post -story activities. This
plan was emailed to the teacher a couple of days before each workshop for her feedback about
suitability. The story transcripts were distributed to each of the children‘s families on the day the
story was told as a means to inform and include them .
4.4.2 Data Collection at Workshops
The main sources of data were video recordings and audio recordings of the storytelling
workshops, which included the storytelling, critical discussion, and small group activities. Both

86
types of recordings were used to provide data assurance for technological errors and
malfunctions but also to provide multiple perspectives. This proved useful in workshop three
when the audio -recorder did not record. Audio recording and video recording of the workshops
using two different operators produced differing perspectives and offset the limitations of a
single recording from a single interpretation (Goldman -Segall, 1998). The different capacities of
each recording device provided different attributes to the data. In addition, the two recordin g
devices were particularly useful during small group activity time, as there were multiple
concurrent activities creating multiple sites for data collection. By positioning the devices in
different places, different data were collected. Unfortunately, thi s also meant that some data were
not recorded for the full duration of all of the activities. With the study investigating my practice
and its relation to young children‘s active citizenship, a digital audio recorder microphone was
attached to me to maximi se recording of the storytelling and dialogue of the activities that I
facilitated. The video recorder was handheld by a videographer cognisant with the aim and
objectives of the research. A videographer recorded the storytelling workshops so that I was ab le
to participate fully in the workshops. The videographer remained stationary during the
storytelling and moved between the subsequent activities to capture sections of dialogue and
action. Video recordings of whole events are recommended in research ( DuFon, 2002), as having
a recording of parts of an event can make it difficult to assess the appropriateness of a comment,
question, or response. This pointed to the need to provide careful instructions to the
videographer. However, it proved difficult to imp art useful directions whilst engaging with the
children, as children‘s responses significant to the research question often appeared unexpectedly
and/or at multiple sites at the same time. Collectively, the audio and video recordings produced
37 hours of d ata: 19 hours of video recordings and 18 hours of audio recordings. There was one
more hour of video footage as the children‘s stories in workshop 13 were video and not audio
recorded.
At the start of the first storytelling workshop, the teacher and I intr oduced the
videographer, her purpose and then invited the children to engage in the storytelling workshops
and forget the presence of the videographer in the room. The videographer was also briefed on
minimising intrusive effects of the presence of a camer a in the classroom. In research, Asch
(1992) recommended that a videographer not manipulate the setting, the participants, or
participant comments. DuFon (2002) reiterated this caution, identifying the intrusion of another
body into the research context as one of the disadvantages of using a videographer. On the basis
of these recommendations, care was taken to reduce the effect of intrusion. Workshop five was
audio -recorded only, to observe if this made a difference to the participation for some of the
more reserved children. No distinguishing difference was noted, so the workshops continued to
be both video and audio recorded.

87 Transcripts of the video and audio recordings of these workshops produced data to
explain what happened in the study. The data prov ided evidence of my learning as a storytelling
teacher. Data also provided evidence of the influence of my actions in the learning of
possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship. In this way, data from the storytelling
workshops generated evidenc e of possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship provoked
through a practice of social justice storytelling.
4.4.3 Follow -up Conversations with Teacher
One to three days after each storytelling workshop, I facilitated and audio -recorded a
convers ation with the teacher. We had conversations rather than interviews, for I sought rich
detailed data to map the learning as opposed to precise data that aligned with predetermined
codes that fully structured interviews elicit (Fontana & Frey, 2005). Sample conversation starters
included:
1. What were your thoughts and reflections on the story?
2. What were the significant moments for you at the last workshop?
3. What do you think is important to follow -through with, in the next story?
After commencing wi th a starter question to initiate the conversation, further questions were
asked in response to the responses of the teacher. Often I asked questions regarding moments in
the workshops that I read as significant to the research questions, such as ―What did you think
when … said …?‖ Ideas for subsequent workshops were also discussed in these conversations.
Building a positive and comfortable relationship with the teacher was a primary concern in these
conversations so that all factors affecting the study c ould be discussed openly. To Fontana and
Frey (2003), researchers facilitate relationships by connecting with the cultural context,
understanding the language and culture of the participants, presenting one‘s self in a way that
sets the tone for the resear ch, gaining trust, and establishing rapport. To cultivate a positive
relationship with the teacher the conversations took place in a familiar space, which allowed her
to feel comfortable and in control. Our weekly face -to-face conversations and email messa ging
built a positive and comfortable relationship that grew stronger over time as trust and rapport
were established. These conversations created openings for the teacher to debrief about issues
related to the school context. This space for debriefing was important for building trust and
rapport, and for understanding the cultural context of the study site.
Follow -up conversations provided an opportunity for the teacher and me to reflect
collaboratively on the previous workshop and consider suggestions fo r future workshops. They
contributed to the reflexivity of the project, as points in our conversations arose where our own
biases, values, and assumptions impacted on the direction of the study. My reflections on these
conversations informed the crafting o f subsequent stories and facilitation of workshops. Data
from these interviews were used as evidence to explain what shaped my practice, as discussed in
Chapter 5, and in the analysis of possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship.

88
4.4.4 Follow -up Conversations with Children
Follow -up conversations were conducted with five to six self -nominated children, one to three
days after each storytelling workshop. These conversations were facilitated to acknowledge that
children have the right to engage, and are capable of engaging in research conversations with
adults, as advocated by authors on children‘s rights (e.g., Archard, 1993; Franklin, 1995;
Freeman, 1996; Scott, 2000). According to Scott (2000), to honour children‘s rights, children
have the ri ght to choose whether or not to participate and the topic needs to be of interest to the
children. Taking this recommendation into account and attending to ethical research practice, all
children were invited to participate in the group interview each week . Often more than six
children wanted to participate, so records were kept of the interviewees to ensure equitable
participation among the class members across the duration of the study.
A natural unstructured format was selected for the group interviews because of the
capacity to produce data that were ―cumulative and elaborative‖ (Fontana & Frey, 2005, p. 705),
as the children‘s comments built upon one another. The data recorded from these interview
conversations documented children‘s evolving ideas abou t social justice as they responded to the
comments of others. The evolving nature of the conversations as different children built on each
other‘s ideas was an advantage of a group conversation as opposed to individual ones. However,
as Stringer (2004) obs erved, ideas can also bounce off in a direction away from the research
topic in group interviews. This did occur at times, and if the conversation was irrelevant, I asked
another question about the story to bring the conversation back to the topic. Efforts were also
made to provide space for each child to contribute to the interview by asking questions of
individual children.
A conversational approach was used based on consideration of the issues of how
children are conceptualised in research, adult to ch ild power relations, and reflexivity in research
with children (Christensen & James, 2008). Through a conversation format, children can be
agentic, with scope to take control of the pace and direction of the conversation (Myall, 2008). In
addition, Myall found conversations particularly suitable when interviewing young children, as
children responded to this context positively, listening and supporting the contributions of each
other. A conversation format was applied in this study to nurture positive and c omfortable
relationships with the children, to share their thoughts and feelings on the stories. The children
were more familiar with each other than they were with me. As Myall (2008) found, children can
help with the social presentation of their peers by explaining to the researcher reasons why a
child may have difficulty participating. For this reason, Myall claimed that group conversations
with children provide space for children to showcase their collectivity. A group of children can
work to reduce adu lt power and cultivate a climate of research with children rather than on
children.

89 These follow -up conversations were an open space for the children to comment further
on the story told earlier that week in a way that was meaningful to them. The followi ng lists
some of the questions that I used to begin the conversations or bring the focus back to the story.
1. Tell me what you remember about the story.
2. What concerned you most about the story?
3. Did the story make you think about anything or remi nd you of something?
4. Is there something that you want to do after hearing the story?
5. Have you talked to anyone about the story? What did you tell them? What did they
say?
Once children were talking about the story, I responded to the content of th eir comments by
seeking further clarification or explanation of their thinking. This responsive approach to
interviewing created space to respond and follow children‘s tangential and diverse ways of
meaning -making with regard to the stories.
In conclusion, the follow -up conversations with the children provided an opportunity for
the children to share further thoughts on the story told that week in a conversational manner. The
children were seen as capable of contributing to research conversations. The group
conversational approach enabled rapport to be built and the children‘s thoughts on the stories to
accumulate and be elaborated. This produced useful data on learning in possibilities for young
children‘s active citizenship.
4.4.5 Written Communications
The teacher and I frequently communicated via email each week as a means of continuing the
reflections and planning that commenced in the weekly interviews. Emailing allowed both of us
the flexibility to read messages in our own convenient time; in addition it automatically produced
electronic data. Further to this, letters of communication between the class and outside sources
relevant to plans for citizenship participation were also collected as data. Data from these written
communications were analysed to identify influences in a practice of social justice storytelling
and in possibilities for young children as active citizens.
4.4.6 Reflective Journal
Throughout the study I maintained a handwritten journal, documenting my reflections on the
workshops, dis cussions with supervisors, and critical friends, along with links to theories and
literature. After each workshop I also recorded reflections in Microsoft Word ™ documents
before viewing the video recording and transcribing cursorily. More detailed reflecti ons were
recorded at the end of each cluster. These reflections guided amendments to my practice and
steered the direction of the study. Many action researchers (MacNaughton & Hughes, 2009;
Stringer, 2004; Whitehead & McNiff, 2006) claim that journaling is a core data source for
documenting the reflective component of action research. Reflective documentation kept

90
accounts of my learning as is recommended in a living educational theory approach to
practitioner research (Whitehead & McNiff, 2006).
In summar y, data collection drew from five different sources: the storytelling
workshops, debriefing interviews with the teacher, follow -up conversations with children,
written communications, and personal reflections. The different sources generated data from
multiple perspectives for investigating a social justice storytelling practice and possibilities for
young children‘s active citizenship. How data were analysed is discussed in the next section.
4.5 Analysis
In accordance with action research methodology, anal ysis occurred during data collection
through the recursive cycles of plan, act, and reflect as well as after data collection. Analysis
sought to generate evidence to test and support claims to knowledge with regard to influences in
my learning of social ju stice storytelling and possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship.
Drawing on a living educational theory approach to practitioner research (Whitehead and
McNiff, 2006) and other action researchers (Dick, 1993; MacNaughton & Hughes, 2009) the
following processes were applied to generate evidence. Identification of learning in my practice
of social justice storytelling and in possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship involved:
1. Monitoring my and the children‘s learning and action.
2. Trans cribing and organising data.
3. Reading data for evidence.
4. Identifying themes.
5. Interpreting data through links with theory and literature.
Although there was interconnection between my practice and possibilities for young children‘s
active citizenship, they were analysed as separate entities. Figure 4.1 provides a diagram of the
analytical processes and the research questions each process sought to address. To investigate
social justice storytelling as pedagogy that enables young children‘s active citizenshi p practice,
my practice as a storytelling teacher was monitored. Findings were sought to these questions:
1 a) What qualities of social justice storytelling support or provoke young
children‘s participation as active citizens?
1 b) How can adults and children wor k toget her to enable young children‘s
active citizenship participation?

91

Figure 4.1. Relationships between analytical processes and research subquestions.

92

To explore wh at young children‘s active citizenship might be as provoked through a practice of
social justice storytelling, learning was monitored in possibilities for young children‘s active
citizenship. Findings were sought to these questions:
2 a) How can adults and chil dren work together to enable young children‘s
active citizenship?
2 b) What proposals for social actions do young children offer?
2 c) What citizenship practices are available and possible for young children?
2 d) Which metanarratives and ideologies influence young child ren‘s active
citizenship?
2 e) Who might young children be as active citizens?
The following details the processes applied in chronological order. First, processes applied to
monitor learning and action in practice (4.5.1) are discussed. Second, the process o f transcribing
and organi sing the data is explained (4.5.2). Third, processes of reading data for evidence are
described (4.5.3). Fourth, the identification of themes is explained as a means of identify ing
significant elements of the research inquiry, redu cing data, and determin ing direction for more
detailed analysis (4.5.4). Fifth, interpretation of data by linking with theory and literature is
detailed (4.5.5). Collectively, these processes generate evidence of learning in my practice of
social justice s torytelling to children, in young children as active citizens , and in possibilities for
young children as active citizenship : the articulation of this thesis and the creation of living
educational theories (4.5.6).
4.5.1 Monitoring Learning and Action
My l earning and actions were monitored through reflective cycles of plan, act , and reflect. I
reflected both in and on my practice as a storyteller and the content of the stories, then planned
for new stories and amended acts in my practice with the aim of pro voking possibilities for
young children‘s active citizenship. Reflection in my practice was shaped by endeavours to live
my values. I recogni sed moments in which I contradicted these values and sought ways to further
support agency, multiplicity, interconn ectivity, responsiveness , and practice.
The shaping of each story was informed by interpretations of what the children saw as
significant in the previous story. Significance was interpreted based on the suggestion by
Stephens (1992) that narrative consis ts of three interlocked components: story , discourse , and
significance. Significance is derived from interpretations of the story and the discourse. Story is
the primary reading for sense. Discourse, according to Stephens, is what he later referred to with
McCallum (Stephens & McCallum, 1998) as register, that is, the way the ideology of the narrator
or teller comes through into the story (as discussed in 3.2). I selected and crafted stories based on
my interpretation of the significance of each story. The children‘s reflections on the stories were
interpreted as indicators of what they saw as the significance of the story as shaped by the sense

93 they made of the story and my ideology that transpired in my telling of the story. This suggestion
of Stephens (19 92) for interpreting narratives enabled a way to read differences in what I read as
the significance, compared with what the children saw as the significance , of the story .
The interpretation of what I read as significance in the stories and what the chi ldren
read as significance was one specific framework that was applied to monitor learning. Generally,
monitoring learning involved documentation of actions, reflections and notes on the significance
or importance of the learning. The processes of transcri bing and organi sing data are described in
the next section (4.5.2).
4.5.2 Transcribing and Organising Data
After completing the workshops, I became intimately familiar with the data by transcribing the
many hours of video and audio recordings. For each sto rytelling workshop I transcribed the
video footage first, then listened to the audio -recordings and transcribed additional data that was
not in the video footage.
The greatest struggle with the recordings and transcribing was sourcing technology
and tech niques that would make the children‘s voices audible. Audibility was compromised for a
number of reasons, which included technical faults with recording devices, soft voices, others
talking nearby, background noise from the Prep class, and noise from machi nery during
maintenance work at the school.
Each workshop was coded by its week number and date, such as W1 16/07/2007. The
interviews were coded with the week number and date along with the code TC for teacher
conversation (e.g., W1 TC 18/07/2007), CC c hildren‘s conversation (e.g., W1 CC 18/07/2007),
and TAI for teacher aide interview (e.g., W13 TAI 27/11/2007). Although the transcripts of both
video and audio recordings provided detail of words spoken, there was so much more that was
communicated or exp ressed that was missed in creating textual representations. To describe
some of these details further codes were devised. Table 4.1 provides a legend of these codes.
Data were sorted into entries for each week (1 to 13), which included the workshop
plan, reflections on the initial viewing of the video recording, the transcript of the workshop, the
transcript of the conversation with the teacher, and the transcript of the group conversation with
the children. In some weeks additional related data , such as photos of children‘s participation in
activities and/or emails with teachers or experts in relation to the content of the story being
explored , were included . My journal was handwritten and so was not placed into electronic
folders with all the other data documents. Appendix A provides a table of dates and codes of
each data collection process (e.g., storytelling workshops, interviews with teacher , and follow -up
conversations with children) and those who participated. The title of the story told at each
workshop is also noted. Systematic organi sation of the data was necessary to manage such large
volumes of data in preparation for data analysis.

94
Table 4.1 . Transcript codes.
Code Meaning
FC
MC
UN
/
…
CAPITALS
(italics )
___
[ ]

( ) Few children
Many children
Unidentified child
Speaker interrupted
Irrelevant data edited
Spoken with a loud or strong emphasis
Descriptions of speaker‘s actions
Words that were unable to be deciphered
Researcher‘ s correction to child‘s error with
word choice or grammar to support meaning –
making
Explicit metacommunication signals to other
players when engaged in group storytelling

4.5.3 Reading Data for Evidence
During and after transcription, the data were read to identify issues relevant to social justice
storytelling as a means of provoking possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship.
According to Whitehead and McNiff (2006), this process involves si fting through the data and
looking for meanings. Mom ents of critical questioning and reflection of my practice in relation to
my research values were recognised as sites of potential learning in my practice. Evidence of
possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship was shaped by literature on commun itarian
citizenship, education for social change, and democracy in education as discussed in Chapter 2,
and the theory of action (Arendt, 1958/1998) discussed in 3.3.
Analytical memos (MacNaughton & Hughes, 2009; Creswell, 2005) were recorded
using the c omments feature of Microsoft Word ™ on each of the documents. These memos were
short phrases of ideas and hunches that occurred to me as I read the data. These memos signaled
possible evidence of learning in my practice, and in possibilities for young child ren‘s active
citizenship . Memos also noted recurring themes in comments and actions that indicated evidence
of the influence of my practice of social justice storytelling on children‘s actions that w as not
representative of citizenship literature. Accordin g to Creswell (2005), the process of reading the
data for evidence and memoing ideas produces a general sense of the data.
4.5.4 Identifying Themes
After reading the data for evidence, the transcripts were reviewed again to reduce the data by
identifying c ommonalities in the analytical memos. Common key terms in analytical memos

95 were grouped together to identify themes in my learning in practice, and in possibilities for
young children‘s active citizenship. According to Creswell (2005), ―themes are similar codes
aggregated together to form a major idea‖ (p. 243). I recognised recurring patterns in the
questions I asked, which led to the identification of themes. Noting repeated ideas in memos and
grouping together ideas with similar meaning identified themes of possibilities for young
children‘s active citizenship . The frequency of entries that indicated each theme was calculated
and Table 4.2 (in section 4.8.1) provides a summary of the major themes identified. Key
participants were identified through the fr equency of their comments and noted in analytical
memos of key themes. Table 4.3 (in section 4.8.2) provides a summary.
4.5.5 Interpreting Data by Linking with Theory and Literature
High frequency themes signalled data that warranted detailed analysis for evidence of learning
through engagement with theory and literature which, according to Dick (1993), widens the
dialectic and strengthens the research rigour. As Dick suggested, existing literature was applied
and new literature sought to confirm or disprov e what the data were suggesting. This search for
additional literature enabled me to form tentative ideas in order to draw conclusions with more
confidence. Relating data to theory and literature created a process of what Winter (1998)
referred to as ―dial ectical analysis‖ (p. 67) through contemplation, speculation, and placing the
data in wider contexts.
Data were used to expla in the importance of the frequencies of themes in relation to the
research subquestions. To explain the ir importance in my learnin g in practice , I used stories as
metaphors and explained influences in my learning through engagement with theory and
literature. Themed evidence of learning in possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship
was analysed for meaning by identifying i ndicators of metanarratives that influence young
children‘s active citizenship. Narratives in particular were explored as influences on children‘s
comments and actions, based on an understanding that children make sense of the world through
story (Dyson & Genishi, 1994; Saxby, 1994). Well -known story themes were identified along
with metanarratives of children and citizenship as possible influences on children‘s comments
and actions. Themed evidence of learning in young children as active citizens was analy sed by
reading the children‘s comments and initiated actions as stories of who the children were as
active citizens. This approach to analysis was based on Arendt‘s (1958/1998) suggestion that
initiated action and its accompanied speech reveals who an agen t is. Attention to actions that
young children initiated in response to social justice issues offered scope to make visible: a) what
concerned the children, b) what they considered to be just or fair remedies to redress injustices, c)
how they acted, and d ) possible influences on their ideas and inspiration for action. Examination
of initiated actions provided greater understanding of children‘s agency in citizenship by
identifying the ways that children chose to be active citizens. Interpretation of the th emes through

96
contemplation with theory and literature clarified influences on my learning in practice, and in
possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship.
4.5.6 Generating Evidence
The articulation of this thesis is the generation of evidence of learning in my practice, and in
possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship. To form this thesis, in accordance with a
living educational theory approach (Whitehead & McNiff, 2006) data were selected that carried
meaning to justify my provisional claim to realising my research values of agency,
interconnectivity, responsiveness, multiplicity and practice. Explanations were constructed of
influences in my learning and judgments made on the quality of my practice in terms of my
values to form living educational theories. The following section explains further endeavours
employed to address quality.
4.6 Quality
There is considerable debate about measuring the quality of re search (Guba & Lincoln, 2005).
Those who support a living educational theory a pproach to practitioner research (e.g., McNiff,
2007; Spiro, 2008; Sullivan, 2006; Whitehead & McNiff, 2006) claim that practitioner –
researchers are capable of articulating their own standards of judgment , that is, the values of the
researcher are living s tandards of practice. In Chapter 3, my ontological, epistemological,
methodological , and pedagogical values of agency, multiplicity, interconnectivity,
responsiveness , and practice were explained. These values guided my practice, analysis , and
writing and are proposed as standards of judgement for quality . The following two sections
provide further details on how I addressed rigour (4.6.1) and validity (4.6.2).
4.6.1 Rigour
The rigour of living educational theory approach to practitioner research is evident in application
of the principles of reflexive critique and theory -practice transformation as espoused by Winter
(1989). The core ideas of this approach are critical reflection of the place of the practitioner –
researcher in the research, and that practice can create theory. Well -considered and consistent
attention to these principles and ideas establish and maintain rigour. Critical reflections of my
practice along with critiques of the workshops by the teacher and critiques of the stories by the
children i nformed amendments to my practice. These reflections provided multiple perspectives
from the teacher, different children, and me, so that individual biases or assumptions intersected
with points of view from others presenting evidence of rigourous research .
Throughout data collection and analysis, action was taken to address four
characteristics of rigour that MacNaughton and Hughes (2009) collated from the work of several
action researchers (Branigan, 2003; Coghlan & Brannick, 2004; Dick, 1999). These
characteristics include: a) data collection through several diverse methods, b) analysis from
several perspectives, c) explicit values, and d) systematic enactment of the action research cycle.

97 In this study, data were collected through several diverse method s from different sources (see
4.4). Data were analysed from multiple perspectives: the three theoretical foci, literature, and
values. This enabled different readings of the data to be presented. Research values were stated
explicitly and reflected upon th roughout the thesis. Finally, I engaged in the systematic processes
of planning, acting, and reflecting on a weekly basis around the weekly storytelling workshops.
The detailed explanations of these processes in this thesis collectively address these four
characteristics of rigour through multiple perspectives and systematic approaches.
4.6.2 Validity and Trustworthiness
In this study validity was seen as establishing the trustworthiness of a claim to knowledge
(MacNaughton & Hughes, 2009; Whitehead & McNif f, 2006). This action research
understanding of validity involves a rational process that seeks to establish authority of the
scholarship and reduce bias (Whitehead & McNiff). Authority of the scholarship was addressed
through the practice of inquiry being my own and accounts given of ongoing critical reflection of
my practice cultivating change and learning in my practice. Bias was reduced by gathering
critiques of the workshops and stories from the teacher and children to cultivate dialectics.
Through the se practices, trustworthiness of the research findings can be claimed.
Trustworthiness can also be established through procedures that attain dependability,
confirmability, credibility, and transferability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985). Dependability or
reliabil ity of the study can be claimed through the detailed articulation of the research design,
including the research question, methodology, data collection, and data analysis. Confirmability
or the certainty of the research can be claimed through the systems t hat were established to code,
categorise, and store the data. Credibility or believability of the study can be claimed, as Stringer
(1999) suggested, through prolonged engagement with participants, multiple data sources, and
participant debriefing. These f actors contribute detailed accounts of the study from multiple
perspectives which aid belief in the findings of research. Through investigation of a highly
contextualised and subjective account, a living educational theory approach to practitioner
research does not claim transferability or generalisability. Investigation of my practice of
storytelling cannot be replicated. The nature of the data is very specific to the context of the
study . However, it is hoped that there are elements of this thesis that re aders find applicable to a
range of storytelling, educational , and community practices. In summary, detailed explanations
of the research design, data systems, data collection, and critical reflection of the study were
provided in an endeavour to establish the validity and trustworthiness of the study.
4.7 Research Ethics
Ethical approval was provided for this study with a Level 2 clearance for human research (QUT
Human R esearch Ethics Committee). Approval to conduct research in a Queensland state school
was also obtained via the school principal prior to the commencement of the research, in

98
accordance with the guidelines of the state education authority. Appropriate research
methodology and pedagogical practices were implemented throughout the study to ens ure the
physical, emotional , and psychological safety of the children. Research protocols were followed
in accordance with the relevant guide at the time: National Statement on Ethical Conduct in
Research involving Humans (1999).3 This guide included proce sses and practices honouring the
principles of integrity, respect for persons (and groups), beneficence and justice, and the practice
of seeking informed and voluntary consent verbally and in written form from all participants in
the project.
Written vol untary consent from the parents of participating children was gathered. In
viewing consent as a process rather than a moment in time, I sought the children‘s verbal consent
at the commencement of each storytelling workshop and for participation in each int erview, and
to share their stories at conferences and seminars. In honouring children‘s rights, as
MacNaughton and Smith (2005) suggested, I provided frequent opportunities for the children to
express their right to refuse participation and for their actio ns, words, and creations to be
recorded. These regular checks conveyed respect for children‘s voluntary participation and their
right to exit at any time. To address potential ethical dilemmas arising in discussions with the
children, I saw myself as part of the children‘s lives, as recommended by Myall (2008) and
Birbeck and Drummond (2007) in research with young children. I sought to build relationships
of trust and mutual respect to uphold ethical imperatives of researching with children.
According to Alderson (2005), undertaking ethical research with children requires that
the design incorporates children being treated as competent research participants from the early
plans through to dissemination. On ending my research with the children, I shared in itial findings
with the children and their families through a presentation, of comments made by each child in
relation to the research questions. In addition each child received a DVD recording of the story
that they told in week 13 with a montage cover o f what each child named as most precious to
them. The naming of what was most precious was a workshop activity in week 13. These acts
were an effort to share with the children elements that they contributed to the research and
honour the value of their par ticipation.
4.8 Participants in the Study
This section (4.8) introduces the participants and research site. The participants in this study were
children aged five to six years attending a Preparatory class, their teacher, and teacher aide.
Selection of a group of young children to participate in a social justice storytelling
program involved circulating a brief about the study through early childhood professional

3 Since completion of data collection , the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research involving
Humans (1999) h as been replaced with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research
(2007) .

99 networks. A number of early childhood teachers responded, yet geography and time impinged on
their suitability. Some teachers in pre -Prep services expressed interest, though a Preparatory class
was selected with the view that a study at a school site could offer wider scope for the
consideration and application of the findings of the study. The g roup was selected on the basis
that: a) the class was the youngest age group at school as the research focus was young children,
b) the class teacher expressed interest and enthusiasm for participating in the project, and c) the
site was a convenient locat ion.
Purposeful sampling, as Creswell (2005) claimed, helped to support collaboration and
obtain rich data for the project. In honouring the privacy of information in accordance with ethics
guidelines, pseudonyms were used for all participants and the re search site. The following
provides details of the school and community (4.8.1), the teacher (4.8.2), the children (4.8.3), the
teacher aide (4.8.4), and how collaboration with the participants was facilitated (4.8.5).
The Blue School is positioned within an inner suburb of the capital city of Queensland,
Australia. The school has been in existence for more than 100 years, so its buildings are a
mixture of vintages. The school cater ed for classes from Prep to year 7, with approximately 700
students enrolle d. At the time, the Prep class that participated in the study shared a new building
with another Prep class. The class spaces were divided by a shared teachers‘ office, storage room
and open kitchen, which permitted noise travel between the two classes. Th ere was a large
verandah running the length of these classrooms, providing space for lockers and small group
activities. The data collection phase occurred from July to November in 2007, which was the first
year that the Prep year was offered state -wide, f ollowing a four -year trial period in selected
schools. It was also the first year that this school provided a Prep program.
Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2007a, 2007b) provides a picture of the
socio -cultural context of the school‘s local community. Eighty -two percent of residents of this
suburb are Australian born (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2007b) as opposed to 74 percent of
the population of the state capital, Brisbane (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2007a) . The top five
religio ns identified are all Christian based (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2007b) . Forty -three
percent of the population of the suburb are professionals or managers (Australian Bureau of
Statistics, 2007b) as opposed to 32 percent of the Brisbane -wide populat ion (Australian Bureau
of Statistics, 2007a) . These statistics present a community profile of a mostly Christian -based
population that has relatively low immigrant numbers and high employment status compared
with the Brisbane population as a whole.
The te acher (the term she chose for her pseudonym) and I knew each other prior to the
study. She is young, dynamic, and vibrant with a strong performing arts background, and at the
time had eight years early childhood teaching experience. Because of her interest in performing
arts, the teacher was readily supportive of my research proposal. At the time of data collection

100
she was one of three Prep teachers at the Blue School. It was her first year of teaching a Prep
class but her second year of teaching at this sc hool.
Prep L consisted of 20 children aged five to six years. In accordance with ethics and
the principle of honouring children‘s rights, each child was invited to suggest his or her own
pseudonym. The pseudonyms are David, Denmark, Declan, Charlie, Jul es, Carl, Max, Patrick,
Mat, Juliet, Liam, Molly, Fergie, Ella, Peter, Finlay, Ebony, Tony, Scott, and Nick. Cultural
heritages that were represented in the class included Nepalese, Indian, Spanish, Sri Lankan,
Papua New Guinean, Hong Kong Chinese, Danish and Anglo -Australian.
Prior to commencing data collection, I visited the teacher and the class at the Blue
School on four occasions ( 2/05/2007; 28/05/2007; 14/06/2007; 19/06/2007) to build rapport and
establish my role as a visiting storytelling teacher/ researcher. On the first visit the teacher and I
explained that I would be visiting on a weekly basis in terms three and four to tell them stories,
because I was interested in researching their responses to the stories. I did not define the stories
as soci al justice, so as not to influence their interpretations and responses. The children were
informed of the format of the workshops and the opportunity to provide feedback through the
follow -up conversations. I told a different folktale on each of the first three visits. On the fourth
visit a character from the last story was hot-seated (a dramatic convention where a teacher or
student in role is interviewed by the rest of the class) to further build the children‘s questioning
skills, as the teacher and I had observed that the children asked mostly fact -finding questions.
The dramatic convention of hot seating was employed to cultivate critical thinking and
questioning. This strategy was guided by the recommendation of Giroux (1983) that for civic
participatio n in education, students need to be taught to critically question accepted practices.
The intention of each of my visits was to form comfortable working relationships with the
teacher and children.
A written summary of the study (see Appendix C) was dist ributed to the children‘s
families with an invitation to attend an information session prior to school closure one afternoon.
The parents that attended asked to be able to watch the workshops and to receive copies of the
stories told each week. I was able to introduce myself as a storytelling teacher/researcher and
explain the study to most other parents when they came to collect their children. It was at this
meeting that consent forms were distributed and discussed.
The Teacher Aide had worked at the sch ool part -time for many years. She supported
the teacher in Prep L on Mondays, which was the day of the week that I mostly facilitated the
workshops. Like the teacher, she was very supportive and interested in the study but had
difficulty sourcing time to d iscuss the study with me due to her commitments to other classes.
Teacher aide rostering and class allocation was complicated at the Blue School. For example,
Prep L had a different teacher aide each day except Thursdays, on which no teacher aide worked
in the class.

101 Based on the relational view of a living educational theory approach to practitioner
research (Whitehead & McNiff, 2006), the study was approached as a collaborative venture with
the children, their teacher , and teacher aide. Each participant was respected as a valuable
contributor , with feedback regularly sought through the critical discussions and conversations
(and a lso via email with the teacher) . Participants were seen as agentic in the research process,
with their knowledge welcomed, shar ed, and u sed to guide the direction of the study.
Participation was voluntary, yet it was invaluable to the study. Collaboration with each of these
people cultivated rich learning regarding social justice and active citizenship.
4.9 Thematic Analysis
In this section, key themes (4.9.1) and key participants (4.9.2) identified through thematic
analysis are described at this point in the thesis to explain what steered the selection of data
samples for detailed analysis in the subsequent analysis chapters. Key themes were identified
through reading data as a step in the process of deducing findings to the research question.
Findings from thematic analysis led to decisions to analyse in detail selected data samples that
indicated meaning to the research question .
4.9.1 Key Themes
Readings of the data for findings of possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship identified
recurring themes. The four most common themes were critical awareness, consideration of
another, suggestions of social actions, and s uggestions of retributive actions.
Critical awareness of unjust practices was defined as a key theme of possibilities for
young children‘s active citizenship as influenced by critical pedagogues (Freire, 1974; Giroux,
1983, 2003; Greene, 1995), who claim ed critical awareness to be an attribute of active
citizenship. Examples of critical awareness included: a) making personal connections to
experiences of injustice in stories, b) critical questioning of why antagonists acted unjustly in the
stories, c) con sideration of wider social issues and their relation to the injustice in the stories, d)
posing ‗what if‘, ‗how come‘ , and ‗why‘ questions, e) critical reasoning of the intent of actions in
the stories, and f) ability to explain the importance of a story.
Consideration of another and suggestions for social actions were identified in
accordance with the aims and practice of education for social change (Freire, 1974; Giroux,
1983, 2003; Greene, 1995) and the theory of action (Arendt, 1958/1998) as a politica l conception
of democracy (Biesta 2009, 2010). The identification of these two themes was also influenced by
definitions of communitarian citizenship, which, according to Etzioni (1993) involves a
commitment to collaborating with others through purposeful group action to create a cohesive
and just society. Evidence that was suggestive of consideration for another was read as children‘s
commitment to their community members. The children‘s suggestions of social actions were
read as purposeful acts with the i ntent of creating a cohesive and just society. Examples of

102
children‘s consideration of another included: a) explicitly seeking ideas from peers on an issue,
b) offering to tell peers about stories that they missed, c) making explicit advocacy statements fo r
peers (e.g., ―Ebony doesn‘t have any‖), and d) comforting gestures (e.g., pat on shoulder) when a
peer was distressed. Examples of children‘s suggestions of social actions included: a) offering
ideas for resources to aid those who experience injustice, a nd b) offering strategies to aid those
who experience injustice.
The children‘s suggestions of retributive actions were also seen as attempts to create a
just society, although perhaps not as cohesive or considerate to others. Examples of suggestions
of retributive actions included: a) arresting/trapping/jailing antagonists, b) inflicting physical
harm on antagonists , c) stealing what the antagonist treasures, and d) recreat ing the same
experience of injustice for the antagonist as the antagonist inflicted . Suggestions made for
retributive action were seen as an anomaly to the literature in that they did not fit with definitions
of communitarian citizenship. Yet the high occurrence of suggestions of retributive actions
signalled importance.
Suggestions of alternative story endings to some of the stories I told were also
identified as a recurring theme, though were not as frequent as the other four themes. Like
suggestions of retributive actions, this theme was not representative of literature on children‘s
citizenship. On each of the occasions this theme was noted a child provided a positive, happy –
ever-after story ending to counter the loss and suffering in the story told. Examples of
suggestions of alternative story endings included: a) countering told sto ries with non -violent
story endings, and b) countering suffering in stories with escape plans for those who experienced
injustice. These acts could be interpreted in many ways, such as acts of resistance by seeking to
change the direction of the story, thu s providing critical feedback to my practice of social justice
storytelling. In terms of citizenship, they could be viewed as displays of the democratic right to
freedom of speech (Dahl, 2003; Mills, 1869/1999). The children expressed alternative endings t o
stories freely. The suggestion of happy -ever-after endings could also be read as idealism, which
Kielburger (1998) identified as providing vision for acts of children‘s citizenship. In these ways,
suggestions of alternative story endings were suggestive of indicators of children‘s citizenship
and although their occurrence was not high in frequency, they raised many questions warranting
further investigation in analysis of my practice of social justice storytelling and exploration of
what young children‘s active citizenship might be.
In recognition of the frequent recurrence of these themes, the analytical memos of each
transcript were scanned for entries that noted the recurring themes. Frequencies were tallied for
each week of data. Through the process o f tallying frequency, some weeks presented more
evidence of particular themes. Table 4.2 provides a summary of the frequency of these themes,
per data week. The high frequency of suggestions of social actions (35 entries) and retributive
actions (27 entrie s) pointed to these two areas as particularly important to the inquiry. Based on

103 importance through high frequency, samples of these themes were subjected to more detailed
analysis to gain further understandings of possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship. To
begin with, the prevalence of these themes for some children more than others was identified.
Table 4.2. Summary of frequency of major themes in children‘s citizenship practice per data
week.
Themes Critical
awareness Consideration for
another Suggestions of
social actions Suggestions of
retributive
actions Suggestions of
alternative story
endings
Data
codes W1 16/07/2007
(TOTAL = 1)
W3 30/07/2007
(TOTAL = 2)
W4 CC 9/08/2007
(TOTAL = 3)
W6 30/08/2007
(TOTAL = 3)
W7 3/09/2007
(TOTAL = 1)
W8 10/09/2007
(TOTAL = 1)
W9 19/09/2007
W9 TC 19/09/2007
(TOTAL = 1)
W11 15/10/2007
(TOTAL = 2)
W12 23/10/2007
W12 TC24/10/2007
(TOTAL = 2) W4 6/08/2007
(TOTAL = 2)
W5 21/08/2007
(TOTAL = 1)
W6 CC 31/08/2007
(TOTAL = 1)
W7 CC 5/09/2007
(TOTAL = 1)
W 8 10/09/2007
(TOTAL = 3)
W9 19/09/2007
(TOTAL = 6)
W 11 15/10/2007
(TOTAL = 3)
W11 TC17/10/2007
(TOTAL = 1)
W12 23/10/2007
(TOTAL = 1)
W13 5/11/2007
(TOTAL = 2) W2 23/07/2007
(TOTAL = 5)
W3 30/07/2007
(TOTAL = 2)
W6 30/08/2007
(TOTAL = 4)
W6 CC 31/08 /2007
(TOTAL = 5)
W7 3/09/2007
(TOTAL = 14)
W 8 10/09/2007
(TOTAL = 5) W2 CC 25/07/2007
(TOTAL = 1)
W4 6/08/2007
(TOTAL = 1)
W4 CC 9/08/2007
(TOTAL = 1)
W5 21/08/2007
(TOTAL = 1)
W6 30/08/2007
(TOTAL = 3)
W7 3/09/2007
(TOTAL = 12)
W7 CC 5/09/2007
(TOT AL = 1)
W8 10/09/2007
(TOTAL = 1)
W10 10/10/2007
(TOTAL = 5)
W13 2/11/2007
(TOTAL = 1) W1 16/07/2007
(TOTAL = 1)
W1 CC 18/07/2007
(TOTAL = 1)
W2 23/07/2007
(TOTAL = 2)

W6 30/08/2007
(TOTAL = 1)
W6 CC 31/08/2007
(TOTAL = 1)

Total
entries 16 21 35 27 6

4.9.2 Key Participants
In the process of identifying themes, the same participants were consistently noted as displaying
evidence relevant to the key themes of possibilities (that is, capabilities and capacities) for young
children‘s active citizenship . On noticing comments by the same children that were
representative of the key themes, records for each of these children were created of dates,
transcripts, line number/s, and themes. Table 4.3 provides a summary of the tally of entries
according to the five key themes mapped across six key child participants. Six children were
identified as key participants from the class of 20, because more than five of their comments
were noted as representative of the key themes. These six children were Juliet, Denmar k, Max,
Molly, Declan, and Ella. They were all regular and active contributors to the storytelling
workshops and interviews, providing rich data to the research inquiry. This may be seen as only
telling the stories of the more vocal children whilst ignorin g the stories of citizenship from the
less frequent contributors. The rest of the class did engage actively in the workshops and efforts
were made to listen to their views in respect for the right to freedom of expression, yet their level
of motivation to express opinions on social justice and active citizenship was not as strong as that
displayed by Juliet, Denmark, Max, Molly, Declan, and Ella. Juliet, Denmark, Max, Molly,
Declan, and Ella regularly demonstrated an ability to theorise and hypothesise the meaning of

104
actions and events in the stories and made suggestions of social actions in response to the stories,
therefore displaying capabilities and capacities for young children‘s active citizenship.

Table 4.3. Frequency of contributions by key particip ants according to identified themes in
children‘s citizenship practice.
Key
participants Critical
awareness Consideration
for another Suggestions of
social actions Suggestions of
retribution Suggestions of
alternative
story endings
Juliet 9 4 2 3
Max
6 3 4
Molly 3 2 5 2
Declan 1 1 3 3
Denmark 5 6 4
Ella 2 7 1 2

As these six children contributed most of the themed comments and actions, data
samples from them feature most frequently in the analysis chapters. The following descriptions
of ea ch of these children attempt to paint a portrait of their character in the study. These portraits
are offered to provide more detail of how these children participated beyond names and numbers.
Juliet was 6 years of age at the time of the study, positionin g her as one of the oldest in
the class. She was a focused and keen listener in the storytelling workshops. When she missed
hearing a story due to absence, Juliet asked to interview a character from that story as a way of
obtaining a glimpse into the story . As evident in Table 4.3, Juliet displayed by far the most
evidence of critical awareness. She was consistently an enthusiastic and articulate contributor to
the critical discussions after each story, providing clear explanations and theories as to why
certain events occurred in stories and hypothesising the thinking behind the actions of the
characters. Often Juliet readily pointed out connections in a story that other children had not
identified, or if the children‘s responses were similar. When question s were posed that asked the
children to imagine beyond the content of the story, Juliet could predict the possible
consequences, offering plausible answers. She was quite capable of defining abstract concepts,
such as: ―They are free‖ for a definition of ― freedom‖; then contrasting this with the analogy of a
pet as ―They are locked up‖ (Lines 140 -147 W1 16/07/2007). Juliet could identify symbolic
meanings in metaphoric stories, such as ―the freedom bird was trying to say something‖ (Line
270 W1 16/07/2007). She was one of the most frequent participants in the follow -up
conversations. Her preferred choice during activity time in the workshops was drawing about the
stories.
Denmark was also 6 years of age and a confident contributor to the critical discussions .
He proposed theories as to the meaning of concepts and made links between story content and
events in his life, e.g., ―I‘ve got two little sisters and Mummy and Daddy listen to them‖ (Lines

105 352 W4 6/08/2007). In these critical discussions, he was able to follow the thread of the
conversation and extend a previous comment or offer counter arguments to those being
proposed. He also said quite quirky comments such as ―It really hurts my brain‖ (Line 369 W1
16/07/2007) when thinking of an answer. Efforts to p roblem -solve the story dilemmas were the
dominant feature of his comments (Lines 160 -162 W 1 CC 18/07/2007; Lines 483 -485 W 2
23/07/2007; Lines 125, 150, 179 -181, 305 -306, 311 -313 W3 31/07/2007). Denmark participated
in a wide range of activities across th e duration of the program, which included interviewing a
character from a story, an anti-poaching campaign discussion, listing ways to arrest carpet
factory owners who forced young children to work, a meeting on child labour, drawing, and
block -building. In many of these activities he included and collaborated with others keenly.
Max was 5 years of age at the time. He listened to the stories very seriously and readily
questioned the content of the stories, not only for clarification but from a moralistic p erspective
(―Why do he kill animals to get food? No! Only walk to the shops, get food, then come home .‖
Lines 80 -81 W1 16/07/2007 ). His family were devout Hindus and vegetarians. Max suggested
alternative story endings to the stories on four noted occasion s, replacing violent acts with non –
violent acts (Lines 80 -81W1 16/07/2007 ; Line 214 W2 23/07/2007). He also suggested frequent
social actions, such as ―We could buy some more sheep for the farmers here‖ (Line 655 W2
23/07/2007); ― They would call the cops a nd tell them ( deep voice ): ‗No kids are working in any
factory‘ ‖ (Lines 533 -534 W6 30/08/2007) , and ―Tell some people what is happening in the
country we live in‖ (Lines 589 -590 W6 30/08/2007). He seemed to really enjoy the opportunity
to discuss the stor ies and consistently requested to attend the follow -up conversations. At activity
time he chose diversely, frequently opting to be an active contributor to group tasks (e.g., anti –
poaching campaign discussion, listing ways to arrest carpet factory owners w ho forced young
children to work, building and painting a school, and listing ways to play with just two blocks).
Molly was also 5 years of age. She identified keenly with the injustices in the stories
(e.g., ―‘cos his brother bossed him around and no one listened to him‖ Line 303 W4 6/08/2007).
This meant that at times that Molly appeared to emotionally connect with the stories. Her
frequent contributions to the critical discussions and follow -up conversations explained causal
links between actions and eve nts, and connections between story content and personal
experiences. During the storytelling, Molly was also a regular active participant, volunteering to
role play characters in the stories. Her most frequent choice during the activity time was drawing.
Declan, like Juliet and Denmark, was 6 years of age. In the critical discussions he
frequently asked clarifying questions and made links between story content and personal
experiences (e.g., ―I‘ve got a little brother and we listen to him and my Mum and Da d listen to
me as well‖ Line 333 -334 W4 6/08/08). He often thought through the story dilemmas and
offered feasible solutions (e.g., planting fig seeds). Declan frequently contributed heartfelt
connections, appreciating the points of hope in the stories. He participated in a diverse range of

106
activities, such as the silence game, making a papier -mache Coxen‘s fig -parrot, miniature
worlds, drawing, building, and painting a model school.
Ella was 5 years of age and became a more verbal contributor in clusters t wo and three
of the study. She was the highest contributor of comments that suggested social actions. One of
her suggestions was that the class seek help from their buddy class (Line 574 W6 30/08/2007),
which instigated a joint class project on the issues of child labour in Pakistan. Ella suggested
alternative story endings to the stories of child labour, placing the protagonist where she was free
from suffering. Ella‘s alternative stories were usually plans of escape for the protagonist (Lines
657-660 W6 30/08/2007; Lines 12 -13 W6 CC 31/08/2007). Ella most frequently chose drawing
during activity time. She shared a close friendship with Molly and offered to tell Molly the story
that she missed when she was absent one week.
Each of these six children made s uggestions of social actions and retributive actions. In
Table 4.3 it is evident that these two themes were noted in the comments of each of the key
participants, whereas some children did not make comments that reflected critical awareness,
consideration of another, or suggestions of alternative story endings. The prominence of these
two themes suggested that they were important to this inquiry into possibilities for young
children‘s active citizenship as provoked through social justice storytelling.
The relationship between themes and the story told are analysed in detail in Chapter 5
through critique of my practice of social justice storytelling in action. More detailed analysis of
children‘s suggestions of social actions is discussed in Chapter 6 in te rms of how discourses and
metanarratives shape young children‘s active citizenship participation. Chapter 7 provides a
more detailed analysis of children‘s consideration for another, suggestions of social actions, and
suggestions of retributive actions. The importance of these three themes are explored through
application of Arendt‘s theory of action (1958/1998) and the ideas of metanarratives and
counternarratives to describe who young children might as citizens . In this way the identification
of themes an d key participants steered the direction of further analysis to obtain detailed findings
to the research subquestions.
4.10 Conclusion
This chapter has explained the methodology of a living educational theory approach to
practitioner research. The multip le data sources were described. Application of a living
educational theory approach to practitioner research involved critical reflection , both during data
collection and after , to generate explanations of learning in my practice, and in possibilities for
young children‘s active citizenship. Transcribing and organi sing data, identifying themes, and
analysing them for meaning through engagement with theory and literature generated evidence
of learning. Explanations of learning in my practice were judged acco rding to the core values of
the study. These methodological procedures and approaches formed systems to address quality.

107 The research participants and site were introduced, and the key themes and participants
identified, to set the scene for the subsequent analysis chapter s.

108
CHAPTER 5: EMERGENT MOTIFS OF SOCIAL JUSTICE
STORYTELLING AS PEDAGOGY
Influences and learning i n my practice are explained in this chapter. The story of what I did and
why I did it as a storyteller is told by responding to questions, q uandaries , and puzzlements that
arose in my practice in relation to objective one and its two sub question s (see Figure 1.1), and
endeavours to live my values of agency, multiplicity, responsiveness, interconnectivity , and
practice. My practice was steered by my reflections, the children‘s responses, the teacher‘s
responses, literature , and theory. Explanations are provided of how these informed my decisions
for stories and amendments to my practice at the time of data collection. This chapter presents
the ‗what happened‘ compon ent of this action research study. Reference to the timetable of dates
of storytelling workshops, follow -up interviews , and titles of stories told (Appendix A) may
guide reading of this chapter.
The shaping of my storytelling practi ce as a means to provoke and promote young
children‘s active citizenship is the focus of this chapter. Analyses of possibilities (as capabilities
and capacities) for young children‘s active citizenship are discussed in Chapters 6 and 7. In this
chapter acc ounts are provided of what I did, questioned and changed as acts to motivate young
children to express opinions and suggest actions to redress injustices in the stories told. This not a
neat success story. The tension between uncertainty and the search for and resistance of certainty
was constantly present.
During data collection it was a case of rapidly planning, acting , and reflecting . I made
decisions during my interactions with the children or in the week between each workshop.
Between storytelling wo rkshops I reflected on the previous workshop to consider where to go
next. After finalising data collection , more detailed reflections of my practice were possible. I
analysed my reflections to identify what shaped my practice. The recurrence of four main
questions that determined the form and direction of my storytelling practice was recognised.
These questions were:
1. Which new story will extend children‘s understanding of social justice issues ?
2. What do the stories set in motion ?
3. How can children‘s agency be welcomed and cultivated ?
4. What qualities of social justice storytelling support or provoke young children‘s
participation as active citizens? (research subquestion 1 a)
These four questions were what drove and shaped my storytelling practice in pursuit of answers
to the research subquestion s.
By repeatedly asking these questions attention was brought to different elements in my
practice of social justice storytelling. The elements included customising stories to audience,
responsiveness and interconnectiv ity of stories, agency of audience, and cultivating audience

109 sympathy. Upon identification of these elements I cross -checked data across the duration of the
study to verify that they were important recurring themes in my practice. To name and explain
these elements , I sought term inology synonymous with storytelling. For this reason I use the
term motifs , which are understood in storytelling as recurring themes with underlying meanings
(MacDonald, 1982) . For example, the motif of the wolf is present in many fairy tales and is
understood as ―a force of destruction endangering the status quo‖ (Zipes, 1983, p. 74) . I have
named these four motifs story -tailoring, spinning and weaving, freedom of expression , and walk
in the shoes of another . They feature as motifs in stories and capture the essence of the elements
identified by repeatedly asking the above four questions to guide the planning of stories and
amending my practice. These motifs are metaphors for how I crafted the stories, and facilitated
the workshops as endeavours to provoke and promote young children‘s active citizenship.
In this chapter the motifs of story -tailoring (5.1), spinning and weaving (5.2), freedom of
expression (5.3), and walk in the shoes of another (5.4) are explained by discussing how my
learning influenced my actions. Each motif is introduced with a folktale that portrays the
metaphoric ideas and purpose of the motif. These stories were selected for their capacity to bring
deeper layers of knowing (Benjamin, 1955/1999; Bruner, 1986) to the motif and make visible
underlying meanings through imagery and symbolism as aesthetic encounters .
. What happened in the study in relation to the motif is then described with data
examples from Cluster -one and Cluster -two of the study that portray how the motif shaped my
storytelling practice, reflections, and engagement with relevant literature.
My explanations of these motifs include reflections of my storytelling practice in
relation to my research values. There were moments when I contradicted my values and
explanations are offered of influences on my practice, with accounts of amendments made to
address contradiction and bring my values into practice. Through the structure of describing the
function of these motifs in my practice, this chapter provides an account of my learning as a
process of evolution and creation. My storytelling practice evolved by responding to the children,
the teacher, literature, theory, and my reflections. Explanations of how these four motifs
functioned together are th en provided through an account of Cluster -three (5.5). The chapter
concludes with a summary of the learning achieved through close reflection of my practice of
social justice storytelling with a Prep class (5.6).
5.1 Motif One: Story -tailoring
The ideas t hat informed naming the motif of s tory-tailoring dr ew from the legacy of the union of
two craft s: tailoring and storytelling. Tailoring has a long tradition in pre -industrial societies and
a strong presence in folktales. Haase (2008) suggested that the practice of tailors travelling from
house to house and village to village seeking trade shaped them to be carriers of news, gossip ,
and stories. He propose d that because of these work conditions , tailors became storytellers and
came to feature in folktales as everyday heroes , characters , to which storytellers and their

110
listeners could relate readily . The Tailor (Schimmel, 2002) is one such story that offers insight to
the union of the two crafts.
5.1.1 The Tailor
In a village there once lived a poor tailor. He had made overcoats for many people, but
he had never made one for himself, though an overcoat was the one thing he wanted. He
never had enough money to buy material and set it aside for himself without making
something to sell. But he saved and saved, bit by bit, and at last he had saved enough.
He bought cloth and cut it carefully so as not to waste any. He sewed up the coat, and it
fitted him perfectly. He was proud of that coat. He wore it whenever he was the least bit
cold. He wore it until it was all worn out.
At least he thought it was all worn out, but then he looked closely and could see that
there was just enough material left to make a jacket. So he cut up the coat and made a
jacket. It fitted just as well as the coat had, and he could wear i t even more often. He
wore it till it was all worn out.
At least he thought it was all worn out, but he looked again and could see there was
still enough good material to make a vest. So he cut up the jacket and sewed a vest. He
tried it on. He looked most distinguished in that vest. He wore it every single day. He
wore it until it was all worn out.
At least he thought it was all worn out, but when he looked it over carefully he saw
some places here and there that were not worn. So he cut them out , sewed them together
and made a cap. He tried it on , and it looked just right. He wore that cap outdoors and
in, until it was all worn out.
At least he thought it was all worn out, but when he looked he saw that there was just
enough to make a button. So he c ut up the cap and made a button. It was a good button.
He wore it every day until it was all worn out.
At least he thought it was all worn out, but when he looked closely he saw that there
was just enough left of the button to make a story, so he made a s tory out of it and I just
told it to you. (Schimmel, 2002)
The Tailor metaphorically explains a motif of story -tailoring and acknowledges it as a
practice of shaping stories for audiences. The tailor crafts from what is still good material to
create a new wearable item. There are remnants of the first garment (the coat) in each subsequent
item. The real art in the craft is knowing which parts to keep and which to discard, and what to
fashion it into. This is the metaphor and meaning that I sought to portra y in the idea of a motif of
story -tailoring.
The following sections explain learning in my practice of social justice storytelling in
relation to the motif of story -tailoring. First, the process of tailoring stories is explained (5.1.2).
Ownership of the tailoring of stories is then explored (5.1.3). Next , ideas of listening closely to

111 the audience and tailoring to their requirements are discusse d (5.1.4). The final section discusses
closing reflections on the motif of story -tailoring (5.1.5).
5.1.2 Tailo ring Stories
Stories were tailored to the Prep class in my practice of storytelling in this study. Although each
story was a story in its own right, there were remnants of previous stories within each subsequent
story. Traces of previous stories remained i n the shaping and crafting of subsequent stories. This
section explains how I tailored stories by providing an account of how the first three stories told
in the study were selected and crafted. The telling and crafting of stories are also critiqued by
applying ideas regarding narrative interpretation from Stephens (1992) and Stephens and
McCallum (1998) . From Stephens (1992) the idea that the sense of a story and the embedded
discourses (perspectives or ideologies) of a narrative are interpreted for signif icance was used to
compare what I read as significance and what the children read as significance of the stories that
I told. From Stephens and McCallum (1998) I applied the suggestion of examining the register in
which a story is told, that is, the field (situation or subject matter ), tenor (relationships) , and
modality (focali sation and perspective) to bring to the fore how my intentions influenced my
storytelling .
The study began with an idea for the first story only. I purposefully did not have a
predet ermined list of stories that I wanted to share with the class. Instead, I wanted each
subsequent story to be responsive to the meaning -making of the children. This was an endeavour
to bring into practice my value of responsiveness through a commitment to l istening to
comments and actions from the children and the teacher in the workshops and interviews. What I
heard the children and teacher say about each story guided the planning of the following week‘s
story and workshop. I read the children‘s comments to identify what they interpreted as the
significance of the story, following the ideas of Stephens (1992) on interpreting narrative. My
intention was to make meaningful links for the children. This practice was informed by advice
from Roche (1999) that adults should listen seriously to children on what is important to them,
and what concerns them, and explore fully their various suggestions for courses of action to
support their participation as citizens.
The first story I told, The Freedom Bird (see Appendi x D), was selected from my
existing repertoire because of my previous experience with it being entertaining whilst provoking
many layers of meaning on freedom, tolerance , and survival. In this story, the song of the
freedom bird annoys a hunter, so he empl oys numerous methods such as bagging, chopping,
burying and drowning to stop the song, yet the bird continues to sing. It is a humorous story that
engages young audiences readily as they laugh and participate in the ―na-na-nana-na‖ and
raspberry blowing. I read t he significance of this story as the injustice of being silenced and the
enduring pursuit of freedom.

112
To demonstrate how story -tailoring occurred in my practice, examples of comments and
questions from the children and teacher are presented, follo wed by my reflections and what
determined my selection and crafting of the next story. I performed The Freedom Bird story with
aggressive enactments of the hunter bagging, chopping, burying , and drowning the bird. My
focali sation was on the brutality of th e attacks on the bird by the hunter to make clear the
juxtaposition between pursuit of freedom and enduring persecution. As soon as space for critical
discussion of the story was opened, Max was the first to raise his arm to signal his urgent desire
to com ment on the story.
Max: The hunter, only if he had a car —so no car —or walk. He could walk to
the shops to get food. Why do he kill animals to get food? No, only walk
to the shops, get food, then come home —like that.
Louise: You think he shou ld be going to the shops instead of killing animals. Is
that what you are saying? Are you concerned about him killing the
animals?
Max: No I am sad.
Louise: You‘re sad?
Max: I‘m afraid if someone chase the kangaroo when I am friends with t he
kangaroo.
Teacher: So you don‘t like the idea, Max, of animals being killed?
(Max nodded his head)
…
Max: Because if we have no animals it will be s -o-o quiet. A little bit
noise___If people kill them and tie them down and so we h ave to help to
save the animals. (Lines 79 -109 W1 16/07/2007)
Max‘s comments indicate a strong objection to animals being hurt, especially through
his question ― Why do we kill animals to get food?‖ and declar ation that ― We have to help save
the anima ls‖. I have told this story to many groups of children across a range of ages, yet no child
had questioned the practice of hunting for food before. Nor had I experienced this degree of
vehement resistance to the hunter‘s actions. The above transcript tells only half the story ;
intonation, facial expressions and gestures expressed with volume Max‘s passion on the issue of
animals being killed .
Teacher: It was interesting for Max from his point of view because culturally from
his culture they would perceiv e meat and things being hunted and
targeted and used in a carnivore kind of way as being very disrespectful.
In fact his initial comment really honed in on that, so I thought for him
what he experiences is completely different to what a lot of other childr en
would experience. (Lines 25 -31 W1 TI 18/07/2007)

113 The teacher also recogni sed how Max‘s initial comment ( Lines 79 -81 W1 16/07/2007)
expressed his outrage at the hunter‘s actions. When I debriefed with the videographer after the
workshop she also comment ed on Max‘s strong opposition to hunting. To some degree I even
felt that he was outraged that I was telling such a story. As a pacifist it certainly present ed a
contradiction to my values if the story was understood in a literal manner. Other children in this
study were also alarmed ab out the hunter harming the bird. P erhaps Max set the tone for
responses. However, it was the deeper layers of meaning that I had hoped the children would
engage with, yet only Juliet voiced comments about tolerance and freedo m. For example, when
we were asking the children to define freedom, Juliet offered the opposing view of a caged pet to
support understanding of freedom (Lines 140 -149 W1 16/07/2007).
Later , Juliette asked to interrupt a conversation on revenge to propose this theory:
Juliet: The freedom bird was trying to say something. (Line 270 W1 16/07/2007)
This was suggestive of an understanding of one of the themes of the story: the right to freedom
of expression. I saw freedom of expression as a major theme of the story, one that I knew could
evoke understandings of people‘s experiences of being silenced and persecuted for expressing
their culture. The first time I heard this story, the storyteller (Donna Jacobs Sife) dedicated it to
the people of Tibet. In my r eflections about which story to tell next, I consider ed telling a
biographical story from the Tibetan people in an effort to support the children‘s understanding of
the experience of being silenced.
Data from the follow -up conversation with six children t wo days later provok ed me to
consider otherwise. The children replied to my question: What concerned you most about the
story ? with the following comments :
Max: When you kill two animals, like kangaroo, it is very sad. (Line 2 W1 CC
18/07/2007)
Juliet : That the hunter killed the bird and it was the freedom bird. (Line 4 W1 CC
18/07/2007)
David: When the hunter put the bird wrapped with paper with the rock on top of it
and put it in the ocean. (Lines 6 -7 W1 CC 18/07/2007)
Later Max asked, ―Who protec ts the animals from the hunters?‖ (Line 16 W1 CC 18/07/2007). I
explained recovery programs for endangered animals, and Denmark suggested a plan for
creating an enclosure for the birds to protect them, with no gate so the hunters could not get in.
Their at tention was on stopping the practice of hunting. To many of the children the significance
(Stephens, 1992) of the story seemed to be the injustice of hunting. To support their
understanding of justice, I felt I needed to follow where their attention was fo cused, not impose
what I thought was the significance of the story, that being the enduring pursuit of freedom in the
face of persistent persecution. The children‘s disapproval of cruel hunting was what I heard and
was the inspiration for the next story. I noted this in my reflective journal after the interview:

114
―Strong feelings (esp.) from Max —regarding the cruelty of the hunter —concern about
killing animals. (Source story that presents a respectful approach to hunting to present
alternative point of view of storytellin g‖ Reflective journal 18/07/2007).
My decision to present an alternative view, in this case to hunting, was guided by the
concept of counternarratives (Lankshear & Peters, 1996) and counter stories (Solarzano &
Yosso, 2001, 2002) and the sug gestion to modify the register through shifts in the field, tenor,
and/or modality (Stephens & McCallum, 1998) . I chose to retain the theme of hunting, crafting a
story with another perspective that differed from the selfish cruelty that was portrayed in The
Freedom Bird . With regard for the emerging motif of story -tailoring, I looked at what was not
worn out and still had presence to shape the next story.
The next story was the Cherokee story Awi Usdi (see Appendix E), which embedded
Cherokee teachings of hunting only at times of necessity. Hunting in this story countered the way
hunting was presented in The Freedom Bird . In Awi Usdi , hunting was conducted in a respectful
manner by seeking permission from Awi Usdi (Little Deer) before killing and then afte r killing
to honour the spirit of the animal by seeking forgiveness.
I told the Awi Usdi story in gentle tones , a vastly different register to that in which I
had performed The Freedom Bird . My focali sation was on respecting a story from an Indigenous
culture. I paid careful attention to not overdramatise or manipulate the text to limit portrayal of
the story through my lenses. This was an endeavour to attend to the cautions of Stephens and
McCallum (1998) that western audiences misread stories from other cultures and apply western
values of truth and justice.
Yet when I proposed imagining and role playing a ceremony to consolidate the
children‘s understanding of what this hunting practice may have looked like, Max responded
with:
Max: I‘m not going hu nting. I want to stay home and do some games or invite
some friends over. (Lines 115 -116 W2 23/07/07)
Max: I don‘t want to kill animals. I want to go to the shop and get food and go
home. (Lines 208 -209 W2 23/07/07)
Max: We could get seeds, then they grow then we eat them. (Line 213 W2
23/07/2007)
At the time I interpreted Max‘s statements as strong opposition to hunting, even though this time
I had presented it through the Cherokee world view of respectful practice. The shift in
focalisatio n of my telling had not made a difference to Max‘s reaction; he did not want anything
to do with hunting. The field (or subject matter) of hunting was common to both stories. Max‘s
attention was on hunting, my efforts to present a different perspective did not seem to alter his
resistance to stories of hunting. Max‘s first comment was in response to my questions :

115 Louise: How might we do the ceremony that Awi Usdi suggested? Imagine we are
all hunters. What respectful caring way would we kill an animal?‖ ( Lines
113-114 W2 23/07/07)
Max refuted this by declaring that he was not going hunting. Other children seemed willing to
discuss hunting but with parameters. Juliet adopted the Cherokee teachings in the story Awi Usdi
and stated:
Juliet: If I wanted to go h unting I would ask the animals first. (Line 121 W2
23/07/07)
Peter appeared to surmise that hunting was not condoned and stated:
Peter: When I go hunting I only look at the animals. (Line 118 W2 23/07/07)
In the follow -up conversation two days lat er, the children went on to talk about ways
of stopping the hunters.
Juliet: When you are stopping hunters you might ask them in a very caring way: ―I
love having animals, so stop killing them‖. (Lines 79 -80 W2 CC 25/07/07)
Declan: Put up signs. (Lin e 134 W2 CC 25/07/07)
Declan: I could tell my friends. (Line 136 CC W2 25/07/07)
I listened to the children‘s energy and interest in stopping hunters, in particular Max‘s
resistance to hunting in the storytelling workshop on Awi Usdi , and considered Hart‘s plea
(1997) for adults to support children‘s participation in matters that interest children w ithin their
local environment. According to Hart, a local focus enables children to be involved directly, and
in turn deepens their understanding and connectio n with the issue . This informed my decision to
source a story that could motivate citizenship participation in their local environment. I reali sed
that if I wanted to present storytelling that provoked meaningful local social action, a story based
on an an imal that needed support in our local environment was required. This was a conscious
decision to build real world connections.
I sourced information on a critically endangered bird in South East Queensland . A bird
was chosen, as opposed to any other anima l, to follow the children‘s attention to the vulnerability
of a bird first aroused in The Freedom Bird story . At the next follow -up conversation with the
teacher I shared these reflections to seek her opinion.
Louise: I really want to shift the focus aw ay from hunting. I feel like I‘m putting
poor Max through hell. I‘m a vegetarian as well and we keep talking
about killing animals.
Teacher: Yeah.
Louise: So I‘d like to move away from that.
Teacher: But DEFINITELY caring for animals. (Lines 32 -37 W2 TI 23/07/2007)
…

116
Louise: I was trying to find something local. There is this bird that is endangered
here in South East Queensland: the Coxen‘s fig -parrot.
Teacher: Oh definitely! (Lines 47 -49 W2 TI 23/07/2007)
Acknowledgment of the children‘ s concern for animals through their desire to stop the
hunting of them was what led me to seek out a critically endangered bird in South East
Queensland. The teacher affirmed this idea, so I crafted the next story on the plight of the
endangered Coxen‘s fi g-parrots, using the theme of caring for animals to tailor the next story.
5.1.3 Is There One Teller (Tailor) or Many?
With enthusiasm for supporting the idea a story on Coxen‘s fig-parrots , the teacher shared
information about these parrot s prior to my st orytelling of The Lonely Coxen’s Fig -parrot (see
Appendix F). This equipped the children with k nowledge of the story content.
When I told the story , Juliet and Denmark frequently interjected with predictions of
what I would sa y next in the story. Althoug h what they said flow ed with the story, I felt that my
storytelling was interrupted and perhaps had not been adequately engaging to keep them
transfixed on my telling . I questioned why the ―listener‘s hush‖ (Kuyvenhoven, 2005, p. 34) had
lost its spellbind ing capacity.
The teacher explained that she believed that the children needed prior knowledge to
engage with the stori es, and this was why she had shared information on the Coxen‘s fig-parrot
before my storytelling of The Lonely Coxen’s Fig -parrot (TC 31 /7/2007). This was an uneasy
moment. I noted these thoughts in my journal.
But I want the story to be responded to on its own —purely. That it should be able to
inspire thought, comment, action on its own. Is this a reflection on my storytelling? A
need to make it more engaging —perhaps interject dramatic conventions into my
storytelling.
(Reflective journal 31/7/2007)
I then clarified with the teacher that f or the purposes of the study I wanted the stories to speak on
their own, to examine the capacity of storytelling (alone) to provoke critical awareness and social
action with her class of young children. The teacher understood and agreed to not provide
knowledge on story topics prior to the storytelling workshops.
Because of this uneasy moment I looked b ack over the transcript of The Lonely
Coxen’s Fig -parrot storytelling. I realised that the children completed my sentences. Perhaps
they did this from their position of knowing and so could pre -empt what would happen in the
story. Rather than viewing their contributions as interfering with the story I considered whether it
could be viewed as co -storytelling. The children certainly seemed to be engaged , for they
contributed actively during the story and in the critical discussion and dramatisation after the
story. I reconsidered my position of storyteller and questioned who controls the story . In
preparing to tell a new story I read the story over and over, not to memorise it but to familiarise

117 myself with the plot, descriptions of settings and characters, an d key pieces of dialogue. When
telling a story my mission was to relay all of this.
On reflection of my thought processes when telling a story, I recognised that I saw
myself as the keeper of the story until I completed the telling, then the children coul d do with the
story what they pleased. As Benjamin (1955/1999) explained, it is up to the listener to interpret
the story the way she understands it. Yet in telling The Lonely Coxen’s Fig -parrot , some of the
children seemed to seek ownership and control of the story before it was completed. This was an
example of the unexpected ways children choose to be agentic alerted to by Gallacher and
Gallagher (2008). This experience, my reflections and engagement with literature provoked a
broadening of awareness in my practice of storytelling that I needed to be more responsive to the
responses of the children during the telling. The act of tailoring requires careful attention to
crafting a garment that fits the customer‘s body. The creation of a final garment that the owner of
the garment brings to life when worn is a responsive process of fitting and refitting by being
attentive to the customer‘s requirements. Through reflection of the experience of telling The
Lonely Coxen’s Fig -parrot , I came to realise that the same applies to a practice of story -tailoring;
a storyteller needs to shape and fit a story by responding to the listeners both before and during
the storytelling.
Another point of consideration in the above account is the collective nature of
storytellin g as acknowledged by Benjamin (1955/1999). In my telling of The Lonely Coxen’s
Fig-parrot , I saw my role as telling the story and the children‘s role as listening and making
comments or undertaking actions at my request. Juliette and Denmark‘s comments dur ing the
telling of The Lonely Coxen’s Fig -parrot alerted me to be more mindful that I was a member of a
learning community, where meaning -making occurred between teller and listeners through
collaboration.
Following this experience I endeavoured to be mo re open to active listeners, who too
could steer the direction of the story. It was not an easy task to loosen control of the storytelling
that was the intervention of the study. Yet I valued agency and wanted to welcome and support
children as agentic bei ngs, and it was the children‘s meaning -making through their comments
and actions to social justice issues that I sought as data for this study. For all stories after The
Lonely Coxen’s Fig -parrot story I created spaces for the children to be active listene rs in order to
nurture a collective climate. I did this by inviting children‘s suggestions (both verbal and role
played) at points in the stories that allowed for children‘s embellishments and embedding of
these into the stories. This is not to say that I had not included children actively in my storytelling
prior to this, as I have advocated strongly for this for many years in my storytelling workshops
and conference presentations. What this experience taught me was to be more open to children‘s
contributi ons as tellers. Yes, I still had considerable control as the visiting storyteller, but I had
been awakened to loosen it and shift questioning away from:

118
How can I convey meaning -making about social justice issues through storytelling for
young children?
to
How can we explore social justice issues through storytelling together? What do the
children want to do with the ideas in the stories? Where do they want to take them?
On close examination of my practice against my values , particularly agency and
respons iveness , I was alerted to contradiction. I had struggled with being responsive and adaptive
to the unexpectedness of some children‘s expression of agency through their verbal contributions
to the story . Acknowledgment of these points of contradiction in my practice informed a
subsequent amendment to my storytelling practice. Although I was already listening to the
children‘s responses to the stories in the discussions and interviews to inform the tailoring of the
next story, I endeavoured t o listen a nd obse rve the children‘s responses during the storytelling , to
be responsive to children‘s collaborations. The experience of children‘s frequent contributions to
my telling of The Lonely Coxen’s Fig -parrot provoked broader awareness of the loosening of
control, and flexibility to be more responsive and adaptive to support children‘s participation .
Enthusiastic contributions from the children to The Lonely Coxen’s Fig -parrot stirred
me to be more welcoming of the contributions of the children as possibilities f or story diversions.
However this was not easy, as it involved relinquishing some of the control I held over the stories
I told, and at times I struggled with this. The experience provoked learning in my practice of
social justice storytelling, as I became more aware and attentive to being open to listening to
others whilst telling stories. Such learning involved a greater interchange of listening and
responding that held potential to inspire growth, creation , and an expansion of awareness for
myself and ot hers.
5.1.4 Further Listening and Tailoring
In my practice of listen ing to the children‘s responses to each story to interpret significance and
guide the selection of the next story, I heard in the children‘s comments about The Lonely
Coxen’s Fig -parrot a common theme of human disregard for animal wellbeing. Some of these
comments included:
Juliet: They weren‘t thinking about the animals. Like if they were chopping down
the trees with a bird in it —they‘ve got to be careful of other animals. (Lines
176-177 W3 30/07/07)
Max: What happens to the animals, if they be friends. Be kind to the lorikeet and
everything else. So why are they killing them? (Lines 199 -200)
Molly: The people were not thinking about the things that live in the trees. (Line 7
W3 CI 31/07/07)
Their common concern of human practices that harm animals steered my selection and crafting
of the next story.

119 I selected the West African story Two Brothers (see Appendix G) next to provide a
counter p erspective to human and animal relationships . I told of how the great achievements of a
mouse inspired the younger brother to leave his village and live with animals in the forest to
learn from them. This story was selected to provide an alternative relation between humans and
animals. The previous stories presented humans violating animals, whereas in this story the
younger brother looked to the animals for wisdom. I read t he significance of this story to be that
some humans respect and learn from animals.
To welcome more opportunities for the chil dren to contribute I asked more questions
throughout the telling of Two Brothers , and I embedded their responses into the story. At one
point I asked the children to make suggestions of what the younger brother learnt from the
animals. In addition to verba lising their suggestions, they were invited to act out their suggested
animal survival practices.
Later in the story I incorporated the dramatic convention of gossip mill, with the children
in role as villagers sharing their thoughts on the younger brothe r. This provided an opportunity
for all children to contribute to the story. In this convention, each person talks to another about
their thoughts of an event or a character, in this case the younger brother. These actions worked
to create a more responsiv e environment where children participated in the story as villagers,
through suggestions of animal survival practices, and their thoughts on the younger brother.
Although these may be viewed as small contributions to the whole story, they marked a
beginnin g step in relinquishing some control of the story and welcoming invited contributions
from the children into the story.
I read the significance of Two Brothers as human respect for animals. However, this
was not significant for the children. The children‘ s comments in the critical discussion of the
story focused on another justice issue . Declan began the critical discussion by asking why the
younger brother left the village, to which David and then Molly replied:
David: ‘Cos he wanted to learn more abou t animals. (Line 300 W4 6/08/2007)
Molly: ‘Cos his brother bossed him around and no one listened to him. (Line 303
W4 6/08/2007)
It was th is experience of the younger brother not being listened to that then dominated the
remainder of the discussion to which I initiated further discussion in the children‘s follow -up
conversation three days later.
Louise: Molly you said you told your Mum.
Molly: Yeah and my brother.
Louise: What did you think was important to tell them about the story?
Molly: No one listened to the little brother —‘cos they thought of him as a
beggar. (Lines 18 -22 W4 CC 9/08/2007)

120
Many of the children related to the experience of the younger brother of not being
listened to, relating their own experiences or experiences o f their younger sibling of not being
listened to by older people. Later, Fergie, a quiet girl aged 5 years, spoke with sadness about how
the younger brother was bossed around by the older brother. Attentive to the possibility of her
emotive connection with the story being triggered by a personal connection to this experience, I
asked her if this reminded her of something. She replied that just like the ol der brother in the
story her older sister forced her to do household chores.
Identification of young p eople not being listened to as a common significance of the
story signalled that this was an issue that the children wanted to explore further. The concept of
not being listened to had been introduced in the story The Freedom Bird and was acknowledged
by Juliet in her comment ―The freedom bird was trying to say something‖ (Line 270 W1
16/07/2007). The theme of being silenced had been lying dormant for weeks in that it was not
discussed explicitly. The time was now ripe for the tailoring of a story of young people‘s
experiences of being silenced using material that was present in the first story, just as the tailor‘s
cap was made out of material that had been present in the tailor‘s coat.
5.1.5 Closing Reflections on the Motif of Story -tailoring
The motif of story -tailoring as a strategy in social justice storytelling was practised through acts
of listening. My efforts to listen were somewhat like a tailor listening, measuring, and attending
to the requests of the client to fashion garments that fit comforta bly and offer new ways of
being. It involved listening to the children‘s comments but also measuring all their dimensions to
craft stories that would fit their being. Sometimes the story fitted some children better than
others. The recycling practice of ta iloring in The Tailor resonated, as I saw that my practice of
listening and noticing what stayed with the children (the remnants) was what I used to shape and
craft the next story so that a part of the first story was in all of the stories. They were story
themes (or threads) that remained present throughout the study. The remnants were at the core ;
they maintained the presence of the past. The parts that were no longer relevant were dropped
along the way. The real skill in this recycling practice of tailor ing was calculating which parts to
cut off and which to retain . Stephens‘ (1992) suggestion of interpreting stories for significance
provided a way to guide this process. Though I was always uncertain. It was a calculated
decision, but I never really knew if I kept the most relevant pieces and crafted the most suitable
story to cultivate and build children‘s understanding of social justice , because my story -tailoring
travelled forward. Sideways comparisons of story -tailoring from different remnants did not
occur. Story -tailoring as a motif brings attention to sustaining openness through careful listening
and responsiveness. It is not about crafting the perfect story, but about inquiring with others
through story.
Learning occurred in my practice of storytel ling through a combined recognition of the
motif of story -tailoring and attention to my research values. The practice of tailoring required me

121 to heighten my awareness of the need to welcome children‘s agency and be responsive to
children‘s story contribut ions. The motif of story -tailoring provided aspirations of becoming a
fine story -tailor, that is, one who skilfully assesses the requirements of the listeners to craft a
story that responds seamlessly to the ideas, changing circumstances, and demands of li steners.
The Two Brothers was the last story I shared in the first cluster of this study, as the
shift in attention from justice for animals to justice for people formed a clear demarcation for a
new cluster. In my reflections a t the end of Cluster -one, I questioned further whether I was really
listening to what the children wanted me to or if I was listening to the parts that would create
‗good fits‘? Were the connections between the stories a reflection of serious or deep listening to
children? Did the r eadings of significance in the children‘s responses to the stories support
meaning -making of social justice issues and the complexities of humanity for children? I
documented this quandary in my reflective journal at the time in this way:
Reali sing that th e way workshops are going is not sitting well with me. I keep
questioning is it really meaningful? Is it what children want or is it what I want? Are
we doing activities for the sake of the predetermined structure? (Reflective journal
8/08/2007)
This quand ary sparked two significant changes to my storytelling practice in the second cluster
that brought to the fore my values of interconnectivity and agency. These two changes are
presented as two motifs : spinning and weaving (5.2) and freedom of expression (5 .3). Although
these changes occurred concurrently the motif of spinning and weaving is presented first, which
provides an account of my exploration of interconnectivity to support the children‘s ability to
connect related issues, and consequently their mea ning-making of justice and humanity. In the
motif of freedom of expression, closer consideration of the inclusion and application of
children‘s agency is investigated with regard to the children‘s participation in this study .
5.2 Motif Two: Spinning and We aving
The motif of spinning and weaving has a long history in storytelling. In centuries gone by
women gathered in small groups and spun yarn for garments in spinning rooms, which became
social and cultural centres. To pass the time they exchanged tales of their lives and others. The
stories they told were connected, just as they spun one long connected thread. Spinning is
reflected in countless mythological and folkloric sources (Haase, 2008), and the most well –
known in Euro -centric cultures is probably Rumpelstiltskin. I have selected the Greek story The
Child Who was Poor and Good , to present the idea of the motif of spinning and weaving, as both
the acts of spinning and weaving combine to create desired meaning.
5.2.1 The Child Who was Poor and Good
Once there was a poor woman with four daughters. She worked long hard hours to
earn only just enough money to feed them. Occasionally, dames who noticed her

122
plight would give her their worn -out garments. The poor woman fashioned the worn
garment to fit her eld est daughter and with the remains she would cut it down to fit
her second and third daughter, but there was nothing ever left for her youngest. She
went about in just a ragged shirt both winter and summer.
One year, the winter was so bad that she told her mother , ―Mother, I must
leave this place and go and find another mother, who can make me a garment now
and then. I shall die if I stay here any longer. I cannot go on with only this shirt to
wear.‖
So she went on her way, walking and walking. Then she came across a spider
spinning a web up and down and back and forth. The child halted and said , ―Spider
I will not break your web, I will go around‖ , to which the spider replied , ―Thank
you my good child. What would you have me do for you in return? Why are you
going around all unclad and barefoot?‖
―I am going to find some cloth, so I can take it to my mother to make me a little
garment, for I am cold.‖
―Go then ,‖ said the spider ―and on your return, come this way again and tell me
what I can fashion you.‖
Further along she came upon a little bird that had fallen out of its nest onto the
road. She held it gently in her hands keeping it warm , and when a man walked past
she asked him to place it back in its nest.
She walked on but came across a bramble bush . She tried to get past it but her
shirt caught on its thorns and ripped it to shreds, so now she was naked. She fell
down crying in despair. A lamb in a nearby field heard her sobs and asked , ―What
ails you child? Have you had a whipping?‖
The child blurted in between sobs , ―I was going to find a garment to keep me
warm when the bramble bush ripped my shirt and now I have nothing to clothe me
at all. ‖
The lamb questioned the bramble bush , ―Why did you do this? What is to become of
her now?‖
―Give me some of yo ur wool and I will card it for her to take to her mother to make
something warm out of,‖ said the bramble bush. The lamb walked around the
bramble and tufts of wool came off on its thorns. The child plucked it off and said ,
―Thank you, now I have something to give to my mother to spin and weave me a
garment.‖
As she was walking along, she reali sed that her mother did not have time to
spin and weave ; this saddened her. She reached the foot of the tree where she had
saved the young bird. The bird’s mother cal led out to her , ―Dear child how can I

123 thank you for saving my baby? What is that in your arms?‖ The child told the bird
that it was wool that the lamb had given her and that she was taking it home for her
mother to spin and weave. ―Let me spin it for you,‖ said the bird. The bird took one
end of the wool and flew up and back, spinning the thread and rolling it into a ball.
The young girl thanked the bird and went on her way.
Then she reached the spider that then asked her , ―Did you find anything to
keep you warm?‖ The spider saw the ball of wool and immediately took an end of
the wool and wove back and forth, as fine as any weaver. She then thanked the
spider and walked home to her mother with the cloth, who was pleased to see her
daughter and promptly sewed her a dress out of the woo llen cloth. The young girl
was now warmly clad. (Ragan, 1998)
In this story, I appreciate how the characters (a lamb, a bramble, a bird, a spider , and a
mother) collaborate d to create what the young girl needed so desperately . The story
acknowledges the qualities that each of these living things offers to make it possible to form a
warm garment. There is interconnectivity between all elements of the story. The story does not
continue in a linear format but doubles back on itself after the climax of the bramble bush,
forming an intert wined loop of connections. Meaning is then shaped by the interconnectivity of
the characters and the story structure. The following sections explain learning related to
interconnectivity in my practice of social justice storytelling by exploring the interconnectivity of
stories (5.2.2), how this aided identification of significance common to the first four stories
(5.2.3), and links between social actions and stories (5.2.4). Closing reflections on the motif of
spinning and weaving in my practice of social justice storytelling conclude this section (5.2.5).
5.2.2 The Interconnectivity of Stories
To further understand the children‘s meaning -making of the four stories that I had shared in
Cluster -one and t o critique whether my practice of tailoring stories was supporting children‘s
meaning -making of social justice, I began to play with interconnectivity, like spinning and
weaving from a tangled thread. That is, I attempted to shape the messiness, confusion, and
uncertainty of my story crafting thus far into a form that offered meaning. I mapped
interconnections between the four stories already discussed based on my readings of significance
and readings of what the children seemed to interpret as significant . Figure 5.1 provides a
diagram of this mapping. Though the interconnecting lines in this figure and the subsequent
figures in this chapter appear neat and regulated for ease of reading, the experience of the
connections was sketchy, tangled, knotted and fu zzy.
This mapping foregrounded my value of interconnectivity and applied the strategy of
webbing ideas used in the early childhood practice of emergent curriculum (Jones & Nimmo,
1994). The representation of interconnectivity to form a cluster of cohesive ness is why each
cycle in this study is referred to as a cluster. What I read as the significance of each story is noted

124
in the circles, and what the children commonly read as significance is written on the line linking
it to the next story. When I began t his process of webbing connections between stories I was
already aware of how story one related to story two, how story two related to story three, and
how story three related to story four, as these links were determined through my practice of
story -tailoring. The four stories are not presented in a chronological line but rather a square to
portray connections between all four stories. This process also enabled identification of what I
read as a common thread between all the stories: impact of human greed or selfishness on living
things.

Figure 5.1. The interconnecting story themes of the four stories in cluster -one.

5.2.3 Identification of the Significance Common to the First Four Stories
In each of the stories, human actions driven by greed adversely affected living things. In The
Freedom Bird , the hunter harmed the bird because he did not want to hear its song. The children
noticed the unfairness of the hunter‘s action, expressed in comments by Juli et and Denmark.
Juliet: The freedom bird was trying to say something. (Line 270 W1
16/07/2007)
Denmark: It is not a good reason to kill a bird because its song goes like this nanana
blahh blahh! (Lines 42 -43 W1 CC 18/07/07)
Juliet and Denmark consi dered the desire of the hunter to silence the bird‘s song an invalid
reason for killing the bird. Awi Usdi told of how the invention of the bow and arrow had
increased killing of animals beyond what was necessary for their survival, and how the animals

125 (after a number of attempts) managed to reduce the Cherokee hunting practice to killing only
what was necessary. At the time I read that the impact of hunting on animals troubled the
children, as expressed through comments from Peter and Juliet.
Peter: When I go hunting I only look at the animals . (Line 118 W2 23/07/07)
Juliet: If I wanted to go h unting I would ask the animals first. (Line 121 W2
23/07/07)
In the third story, The Lonely Coxen’s Fig -parrot , the impact of human logging for housing
drastica lly reduced the Coxen‘s fig-parrot population. The comments by Juliet below seemed to
express an understanding of deforestation on the Coxen‘s fig-parrot population.
Juliet: They weren‘t thinking about the animals. Like if they were chopping down a
tree with a bird in it. They‘ve got to be careful of animals. (Lines 176 -177
W3 30/07/07)
Then in the fourth story, Two Brothers , the greed of the older brother led him to own more than
his younger brother and forced his younger brother to work all the time. T he children noticed the
unfairness of this and how it impacted upon the life and status of the younger brother.
Molly: His brother bossed him around and no one listened to him. (Line 303 W4
6/08/07)
Finlay: I think one brother should have [half] the mone y and the other brother
should have the other half. (Lines 104 -105 W4 CC 8/08/07)
By reflecting on what I saw as the significance of each story, human greed presented as the
driving force behind the injustices in each story. This was not intended. Recognit ion of this
common theme brought to the foreground my ideological thinking about justice as fair access to
rights and resources and consideration of others in the process of sharing access making explicit
the potential influence of my thinking on the child ren‘s meaning making of social justice.
In the section on story -tailoring, I provided an account of how I planned each
subsequent story based on children‘s comments to the preceding story. However, by seeing the
connections between readings of the signif icance of the stories, my action research journey was
imagined as an interconnected process.
The realisation of connections between stories began to emerge in my discussion of the
motif of story -tailoring as I identified a connection between the fourth st ory, Two Brothers, and
the first story, The Freedom Bird , with regard to the experience of being silenced. The notion of
interconnectivity beyond a linear sequence began to form. Mapping these connections made
visible the commonalities between stories and issues that were explored.
The impact of human greed on living things continued to be the cause of the injustices
in each of the stories told (see Figure 5.3 and Figure 5.4). It provided a way to recognise the
networking of connections across the study. E lements of the study were connected together, just
as the lamb‘s wool was spun, woven, and tailored to form a woollen dress.

126
5.2.4 Mapping Actions Set in Motion
The mapping of connections also provided a way to plot the social actions that the stories set in
motion. This resonated with my earlier shift of questioning to : What do the children want to do
with the ideas in the stories? Where do they want to take them? T hese connections were plotted
during data collection, through reflection of children‘s resp onses to the stories. Figure 5.2
provides a visual representation of the social actions that were set in motion by particular stories.
The social actions noted in Figure 5.2 are the focus of analysis in Chapter 6.

Figure 5.2. Cluster -one: The social actions the stories set in motion.

The process of mapping what the stories set in motion enlarged the scope and interconnectivity
of the study. The mapping of where the children wanted to go with the stories enabled scope for
children to contribute to the direction of the study. The welcoming of children‘s influence on the
direction of the study is evident in the formation of Cluster -two (see Figure 5.3). The attention in
Cluster -one had grown to be the impact of hunting a nd deforestation as acts of human greed on
animal populations. The story Two Brothers interrupted this , forming a shift in attention to young
people‘s experience of being silenced and forced to work. This had not been my intention , as I

127 had selected the st ory because it told of how a human respected animals as great teachers. This
shift in attention formed a new cluster with a focus on unfair treatment of young people.
Although a new cluster was formed, it was not completely disconnected from what had alrea dy
been mapped. It was still connected to the legacy of cluster -one through the story Two Brothers .
This act of acknowledging and following what many of the children seemed to read as
the significance of the stories was a conscious act to welcome children‘ s agency. If I had not
listened to what aroused the interest of the children in the Two Brothers story and stayed with the
theme of human relationships with animals (Figure 5.2), t hen I would have missed learning
about concerns of young children as citizen s. The children‘s interest in and energy to explore an
issue would have been missed . In addition, had the children‘s interest in beginning something
new been blocked then , as Arendt (1958/1998) claim ed, their agency would have been denied.
Acknowledging ch ildren‘s readings of significance loosened adult control and led to welcomed
contributions from children to steer the direction of the study, the aim of which was to support
their meaning -making.

Figure 5.3. Cluster -two: Interconnectivity of stories and social actions set in motion.

Plotting the social actions that the stories set in motion during data collection shaped
subsequent stories and social actions. Through the visual representation of the interconnections

128
between stories and actions, I became more aware of what had happened and the possibilities for
where the inquiry might go. Later in data analysis, when children‘s suggestions of social actions
were identified as the highest frequen cy theme, the mapping of connections between stories and
social actions aided investigation of research subquestion 1 a) What qualities of social justice
storytelling support or provoke young children‘s participation as active citizens? The relationship
between the stories told and the social actions the children initiated is explored in section 5.4.
5.2.5 Closing Reflections on the Motif of Spinning and Weaving (Interconnectivity)
Spinning and weaving are well -established metaphors in storytelling. A stor yteller spins and
weaves a tale by leading listeners from one element to the next, with interrelationships made
visible through the telling, or the interconnectivity is revealed as a delightful surprise at the end.
The act of spinning , undertaken by many w omen over many centuries, involved connecting
pieces of wool, cotton, hemp , or flax to form an ongoing thread, similar to the actions of the bird
in The Child Who was Poor and Good. Weaving interconnects the thread at multiple points, just
as the spider di d by weaving up and down and back and forth. Once spinning and weaving is
completed , interconnectivity is presented as an aesthetic form. The motif of spinning and
weaving was present in my practice in many ways. The metaphor of spinning and weaving a tale
was present not only in how I formed and told a tale but also in how I saw opportunities to spin
and weave significances together, along with plotting social actions the stories set in motion.
These maps of interconnectivity guided the selection and shapi ng of stories and identification of
the motif of spinning and weaving in my storytelling practice. Mapping these connections
offered greater scope for plotting what Greene (1995) defined as the intention of education for
social change to inquire what socia l justice means and what it might demand.
By mapping the interconnection of elements across the study, my epistemological,
methodological , and pedagogical values of interconnectivity were foregrounded and embraced.
With storytelling foregrounded as a way of knowing in this study, I built connections
epistemologically between characters and events in one story and another. Methodologically,
mapping connections between elements ensured that my research journey was interconnected
and had multiple directions. Pedagogically, the maps plotted the interconnectivity of children‘s
interpretations of significance in the stories told, which guided decisions for future directions to
further support children‘s meaning -making. I acknowledge that the connections mapped a re my
readings of the study as I pieced together connections based on resounding comments from
individual children. By paying attention to the interconnectivity of elements of the stories and
social actions, the interconnectivity of all participants in the study was foregrounded . More scope
for children‘s agency was possible than if I had ignored their tangent directions and insisted on
an adult -driven pathway. Yet it was still limited by the research focus on social justice
storytelling, the brevity of my relationship with the children, and the lenses that shaped and
guided my practice and that of the teacher. I questioned whether my practice could further

129 address my pedagogical value of agency and looked more closely to examine limitations on , and
possibil ities for , children‘s freedom of expression.
5.3 Motif Three: Freedom of Expression?
My o ntological and pedagogical value s of agency support notions of freedom . From an
ontological position, I recogni se that each of us possesses the right to be who we are , express our
opinions, make choices, and participate freely in society. This value influenced my actions
pedagogically, both in this study and beyond, in that I view children as possessing the right and
the capacity to voice opinions, make decisions, and participate actively in their education and
society. This section provides a close examination of facilitation of the discussion and activity
component of the storytelling workshops with regard to the children‘s freedom of expression. In
the section on the motif of story -tailoring (5.1), I reflected on and changed my storytelling
practice in an endeavour to provide further scope for children‘s freedom of expression by
shaping my storytelling practice to be more collaborative with the children.
This sectio n (5.3) reflects on contradictions in my facilitation of the discussion and
post-story activities of the storytelling workshops with regard to children‘s freedom of
expression or enacted democracy. Problems in seeking to enact democracy within an early yea rs
classroom are identified. The conceptions of democracy as individual, social, and political
outlined in Chapter 2 are considered. To commence this discussion of children‘s freedom of
expression in a practice of social justice storytelling, The Freedom B ird story is told. This story
was selected because of its metaphoric representation of freedom that evokes deeper thinking of
freedom and its enduring capacity.
5.3.1 The Freedom Bird
Once there was a hunter who was out in the forest looking and listening so very
carefully, when suddenly he heard a noise, a very strange noise —a very annoying noise.
Do you want to hear it? Well it went like this ―nah nah na -nah nah‖.
―What’s that song? I don’t like it!‖ growled the hunter. The hunter looked around
to see w here the sound was coming from , and then he spotted a bird high up in a tree —a
beautiful bird, a small golden bird, the most beautiful bird he had seen in his whole
entire life. The bird looked down at him and sang , ―nah nah na -nah nah‖.
―How can such a beautiful bird have such an ugly voice?‖ uttered the hunter in
puzzlement. The bird sang again: ―nah nah na -nah nah‖.
―Oh yeah! Well I’ll teach you a lesson,‖ and the hunter climbed up the tree and
threw a sack over the bird. ―There , that will stop you m aking that dreadful noise.‖ But
as he walked on the bird continued with ―nah nah na -nah nah‖ , although it was
somewhat muffled through the bag. This made the hunter angrier, so when he arrived
home to his hut he took out a knife and chopped the bird into a hundred small pieces.

130
But a s he washed the knife he heard ―nah nah na -nah nah‖, although it was somewhat
disjointed as the bird was in pieces.
This made the hunter even angrier, so he threw all the bird pieces into a pot of
boiling water. But as soon a s the hunter turned his back he heard the annoying bird’s
song bubbling through the water.
―I don’t believe this!‖ blurted the hunter as he ran outside , dug a deep hole in the
ground, then climbed out of the hole and threw all the pieces of bird into th e hole. He
covered it up then stamped on it and sighed: ―HAAA!‖ Then as he headed towards the
door he heard from deep down in the ground , ―nah nah na -nah nah‖.
The hunter was furious, so he ran and grabbed the shovel and dug up the bird
pieces, laid them on sheets of newspaper , wrapped them up to make a parcel , then tied a
huge rock to the parcel and took it down to the river and flung it in. He watched as the
parcel splashed and sank. ―There,‖ said the hunter , and he stood on the bank and
listened and he didn’t hear a thing so he walked home. The hunter then continued to
look and listen for animals in the forest. Many days later the hunter so happened to pass
the river where he had thrown the parcel of the bird when suddenly out of the river flew
a bird, then another bird, then another bird, then another bird until there were a
hundred golden birds flying around the hunter and they all sang: ―nah nah na -nah
nah‖.
The hunter shook his head, looked up at these birds and thought and thought:
―Why has it ta ken me so long to reali se this? I know who you are. You’re the freedom
bird. Freedom can’t be killed off ; we just have to let you be!‖ Then all those birds
looked down at the hunter and sang ―nah nah na -nah nah!‖ (Hartley, 1996)
The notion of impingements on freedom is conveyed explicitly in this story. Although I
have already discussed how the children received my sharing of this story, I have included the
story here to represent the motif of freedom of expression in my practice. The significance I drew
from this story for this discussion is that if freedom is not granted than the urge for expression
resists and multiplies, symboli sed by the endurance and multiplication of the bird one hundred –
fold. The following sections discuss my reflections and amendmen ts to cultivate more space for
children‘s expressions (5.3.2), freedom of decision -making (5.3.3), and to problematise strategies
for equality (5.3.4). The section concludes with discussion of why freedom is questioned in a
motif of freedom of expression ( 5.3.5).
5.3.2 More Space for Children’s Expression
On the 9/08/2007 I noted , ―I want more time for children to freely express.‖ After discussing this
dilemma with others and consulting with the teacher, we decided to provide further space for
children‘s fr ee expression by dedicating the last workshop of each cluster to child -directed

131 activities with no storytelling. This workshop format was also considered to offer space to
summari se and reflect on what had occurred in the previous workshops.
Interestingl y, when I introduced this strategy in week 5, I was reluctant to enter a
teaching context empty -handed. I still planned the activities an d discussion beforehand. I did this
as a means of being prepared, as the regular teacher was absent that day. The possi bility of an
open space for children‘s free expression leading to noisy and chaotic classroom behaviour
provoked cautionary practice, particularly as I was a guest at a school in which neighbouring
teachers would not welcome a rowdy class. My support for a nd intention of active and
expressive learning collided with a metanarrative of schooling that emphasises authority and
control and views a quiet class as indicative of e ngaged learning and good teaching. This
collision created a dilemma in my practice , as doubt and uncertainty destabili sed the balance
between freedom and authority, which Freire (1998) advocated for democracy in education.
I began the workshop by asking the children to recall the four stories that I had shared
to gather data on their str ongest memories of the stories and set the scene for the subsequent
activities. I wanted the stories to be present in their play, as weeks had pas sed since the children
had heard them. However, this was a painful, laborious session. The children were distr acted and
unsettled due to changes in their routine, having a substitute teacher , and because of the change
in the timing of the storytelling workshop (which was held in the afternoon rather than before
lunch). Although many of them had much to say, it was difficult to keep their attention on the
task at hand. I drove the task . It was my agenda; mutual interest was not apparent .
After the whole group recollection of the four stories , I planned for the children to
choose a character from one of the stories to interview through the dramatic convention of hot
seat.4 Thirteen of the 21 children voted to interview the Coxen‘s fig-parrot. This was a moment
where the children were agentic by voicing who they were interested in interviewing. Before the
interview c ommenced children also chose whether to be part of the interview , draw in their story
journals , or play out stories in miniature playscapes. Overall , the workshop offer ed little scope
for possibilities of children‘s free expression to emerge, as an emphasi s on authority overrode
freedom. The enactment of democratic principles, space s, and possibilities for the children to
participate as active citizens in a democratic community needed to be provided . To embrace this
fully, I needed to engage in a democratic relationship with these young children as citizens. I
needed to support their agency in the class community. With this in mind , I questioned what was
possible within the parameters of a school setting .
The democratic ideal of freer interaction between s ocial groups that engage in varied
communication exchanges proposed by Dewey (1916) was considered. In this study varied

4 Hot seat is an engaging method to provide children with an opportunity to dialogue with a character
from whom they want to know more.

132
communication exchanges were offered through the different stories and their critiques.
However, to embrace and enact democratic princi ples more fully the concept of freer interaction
required further consideration.
Another intention of the reflective -summative workshops at the end of each cluster
was to provide more space to gather data of children‘s comments and actions in response to the
social justice stories. The data gathered in these reflective -summative workshops (5 and 9)
offered snapshots of children‘s meaning -making of the stories as they recalled the stories and
played further with characters, themes, and ideas . The children did not suggest any social actions
to redress injustices in these workshops. T his suggest ed that the presence of story provoked
emotive connection, which I discuss in the fourth emergent motif of this chapter (5.4).
5.3.3 Freedom of Decision -making
In week 4 of the study I wrote in my reflective journal:
―Is it what children want or is it what I want? Are we doing activities for the sake of
the predetermined structure?‖ (Reflective journal 8/08/2007)
I had reali sed that the planned format of the workshops was a living contradiction of my
pedagogical values of agency and responsiveness. The study had been conceptualised on
principles of social justice, positioning children as knowing, competent, and equal participants in
the study who possessed rights to fr eedom of expression and choice. Yet I pre-planned post -story
activities for the children in Cluster -one. I wrote in my reflections at the end of Cluster -one:
―Follow the children‘s interests —don‘t force my agenda.‖ (24/08/2007).
The activities that I pre -planned for the children to engage with after the critical
discussion of the story were determined in consultation with the teacher. There were usually
three or four activities for the children to select from. At the end of Cluster -one, I became aware
of the contradiction s in this practice. I had become so focused on managing the storytelling
program that I had not reali sed that I was controlling the ways that the children could respond
through the predetermined activity selection, which therefore limited genuine/authentic
responses from the children. My practice of offering a selection of predetermined activities to the
children was not enabling the children to be agentic. For these reasons, I suggested to the teacher
that I ask the children ―What do you w ant to do?‖ after the critical discussion of each story , The
teacher responded with , ―Yeah they would get more out of it because they are being empowered
into how they want to respond‖ (Line 71 -72 W4 TC 9/08/2007). Her comment suggested that the
idea would provide scope for the children to have greater connection with the experiences. I
expanded on the idea:
Louise: Exactly, not only on the aesthetic response, but if there‘s something they
might want to do to take action on the issue as well.
Teacher: Y eah like ‗what can we do?‘ (Line 73 -75 W4 TC 9/08/2007)

133 The idea of collaboration between teacher and students is suggestive of a social conception of
democracy (Dewey, 1916) expressed through two -way co -operative interaction and
communication in groups to make something in common.
To widen scope for children‘s agency, space was provided for children to make
suggestions about what they wanted to do in response to the story from week 6 in the study. In
week 6, I told Iqbal’s Story (see Appendix H), the life story of Iqbal Masih, a Pakistani boy
contracted to bonded labour in a carpet factory from the age of 5. In response, Max began a list
of what we might do:
Max: Help some people around the country [Pakistan] tell some people what is
happening in the c ountry we live in.
Teacher: We are talking about what we are going to do in the classroom today. Right
now for 15 minutes. (Lines 589 -592 W6 30/08/2007)
He suggested a social action to redress the injustice of child labour , but u nfortunately we had
only fifteen minutes left before lunch due to the story and critique consuming one hour . With this
small amount of time , a condition was placed on what was possible in the space we had
supposedly offered for ‗freedom of choice‘ .
The teacher and I managed this space by limiting the choices to short activities with
easily accessible resources. We took three suggestions: building a carpet shop and factory with
blocks, drawing, and making a card for the principal to seek his support on stopping child labour.
The ch ildren could voice what they wanted to do and chose which activity to attend. If they did
not make a suggestion directly , they still had a choice of three. It was however , disappointing that
Max‘s suggestion was lost. Max chose to play with the blocks and his suggestion of telling more
people about what some children experience in Pakistan, not just in his immediate community
but Australia -wide, was quashed due to time restraints. The energy he had for this was
channelled into the construction of a plane us ing wooden blocks. Reflection of this image of this
presents as resoundingly patronising. Imagine an adult suggesting an Australia -wide education
campaign on child labour and being told there is no time for that, you can choose to draw, make
a card, or bui ld with blocks. Even though the teacher and I intended to position the children as
active citizens in this study, we were located within a school with timetable restraints and an
early childhood setting where play is privileged (Wood, 2008). Play activitie s were easily
orchestrated in this early childhood setting, whereas opportunities for active citizenship required
more time and access to resources beyond the classroom.
The children continued to make suggestions for how they would respond to the story
for each of the following workshops. Each week they had plenty of ideas. Additional ideas to
those already mentioned included listing ways to arrest cruel factory owners , building a model
school for children who had been child labour slaves , and having a mee ting to address child
labour. Each week children always suggested build ing something connected to the story with

134
blocks and draw ing about the story . The repetition of these suggestions was a challenge for the
teacher and myself, as we questioned whether to intervene and provoke diversification in ideas or
to respect freedom of expression and children‘s right to choose. The teacher explained that
whenever free choice was available, block building had become a standard preference for many
of the boys and draw ing had become a standard preference for many of the girls. This indicated
that th e repetition of preference that occurred in these workshops was not different from what
occurred at other times. Though it may appear that the children freely chose an activi ty,
discourses of gender practices may also be at play here as Ryan (2005) found in her critique of
free choice in early childhood education. The hesitation to intervene suggests that the teacher and
I did not want to tamper with the sacred principles of c hild-centred pedagogy. As Walkerdine
(1984) claimed, the worst sin of child -centred pedagogy is teacher intervention that ‗pushes‘ a
child in new or more challenging directions. This signals a dilemma with the freedom emphasis
of child -centred pedagogy, be cause if children are always steering their learning, then exposure
to new concepts and materials can be limited.
Although the result of offering children scope to suggest the post -story activities
presented as a stagnati on of ideas to the teacher and me , to the children it might have been a
chance to do what they reall y enjoyed doing. However, emphasis on children‘s individualism
and autonomy in choice of activities is a liberal view of freedom of expression. In contrast, my
value for freedom embraced con sideration of others within a community and was n ot based on
simply doing what an individual wants to do . Instead, my value embraced practising listening,
waiting, doing, and saying with others in a community as seen in a political conception of
democracy in education informed by the writings of Arendt (1958/1998) .
5.3.4 Equality: Expression Expected from All
In Cluster -three, the teacher and I decided that every child would be asked to express an opinion
verbally or non -verbally (i.e., through dramatic exp ression) during the discussion of the story.
The intention was to support the inclusion of all children. As noted in Chapter 4, six children
were identified as the key participants as they were the main contributors to data . At times I
wondered about the i dea of all children contributing to the discussion of the story because it
produced very lo ng whole group sessions, and it may not have been what all of the children
wanted to do. However, the teacher was strongly supportive of asking all children to expre ss an
opinion , as noted in the following transcript excerpt from our debriefing interview in week 10 .
Teacher: There are a few quieter souls who are still struggling to express —so being
able to express without words is a good option for those kids.
Louise: Yeah, that‘s when I thought reali sing the time factor [that is the restraint of
75-90 minutes for each workshop] —to get everyone to have a turn.
Teacher: And ―N o I can‘t think of anything‖ —I‘m not standing for that; it‘s fourth
term—you‘ve been doing class news talking in front of your friends. And

135 it‘s not a question of them getting upset and crying. It‘s ―I can‘t be bothered ‖
almost. That‘s mean isn‘t it? They were fine. They all coped with it. (Lines
26-33 W10 TC 12/10/2007)
In this excerpt I was a ttempting to create space to raise my concerns about the strategy of all
children offering a response during the whole group discussion. I thought that other options
might be considered , such as seeking out other ways children may choose to express respons es to
the stories. Yet the teacher appeared to insist that all children respond . Her reasoning was
suggestive of cultivat ing a more inclusive dialogic space, as espoused in a social conception of
democracy in education (Dewey, 1938) ; as well as promoting rational autonomy as espoused in
an individualistic conception of democracy (Kant, 1784/1992 ). However, support for the
expression of individual opinions on issues, can deny or disregard others. The teacher reali sed
how harsh her words sounded and quickly noted that the children did not present behaviours of
distress. In the reali sation that force and lack of choice were present in this strategy, the teacher
determined that it was all right because the children ―were fine‖.
To conclude the interview, I sou ght clarification on the management of the ‗all
children to express an opinion‘ strategy, as I was still concerned that it was too long in an adult –
directed activity, and I read it as forced expression, not free expression.
Louise: What about this stra tegy of getting them all to talk —I‘m thinking about
time.
Teacher: I like it —if not something, a comment.
Louise: Even if they have the option to [express an opinion ].
Teacher: Express non -verbally . (Lines 121 -124 W10 TC 12/10/2007)
My intent was t o propose that children could opt whether to express an opinion or not , and the
teacher declared that their choice could be whether to speak or to express non -verbally.
However, the option to express their response to the story , either in words or dramatic ally,
seemed to be well received by the children . There were positive outcomes of responsive
interactions between the children, with some children interpreting other children‘s non -verbal
actions readily and accurately. Yet I was concerned that sometimes a child might not have
anything to say, or might feel uncomfortable express ing herself verbally or non -verbally in the
large group setting. The strategy arose from recognition that the same children spoke in each
workshop, so it was an attempt to provide sp ace for all children to have their opinions heard. I
wondered whether insistence that everyone express an opinion could also be experienced as an
infringement of the liberty to choose when and where opinions are expressed. Although our
intentions were for inclusion, this strategy could be read as being shaped by universalism , where
the same rules apply to all. Universalism does not recogni se diverse needs. My uneasiness about
this strategy prompted me to wonder why some children had not contributed an opini on about
the story in the whole group discussion in cluster s one and two.

136
To me, expecting all children to express an opinion in the discussions of the stories
presented a clash between equality , plurality , and difference. At the time of data collection I did
not pursue discussion of the strategy further with the teacher for the reason that I was a guest in
her classroom. Later, I recognised four ways of reading this strategy. First, my response to the
strategy may be read as concern over tampering with t he ideology of child -centred pedagogy in
that I view the teacher as committing the worst sin, that is, ‗pushing‘ children (Walkerdine, 1984)
into expressing an opinion about the story. However, a case could be argued for prompting the
quieter children to e xpress an opinion, as their contributions increased in complexity. For
example, in the first week that we asked Mat (a boy of Bangladeshi heritage who commenced
the school year with no English) for an opinion, he placed his block in the centre5 with no
comment. Yet 2 weeks later, Mat presented a dramatic response to the Two Rocks story and
provided verbal justifications for his non -verbal expression. Asking all children to contribute to
the discussions of the stories did enable opinions of children to be ex pressed who had not been
heard previously.
A second reading could be that although the intent of the strategy was to support
agency in the group discussion for all children, it was adult directed. The children were not
agentic in their own ways . This was the caution expressed by Gallacher and Gallagher (2008) to
those who research with children that adult -devised ways to acknowledge children‘s agency can
risk disregarding their agency. The teacher and I had intended to provide equal access for all the
children to express an opinion, yet their diverse ways of responding to the story were controlled
or limited. Some children may have preferred to express their opinions in a personal reflective
space (e.g. , their story journals) , with a small group with whom t hey had rapport, or with a
family member or friend. Others may not have wanted to say anything at all. This interpretation
views this strategy of all children responding to the story in the whole group discussion as
contradicting my value of multiplicity. To live this value in a practice of social justice
storytelling requires diverse forms of participation and responsiveness to be welcomed by
responding to children‘s personal preferences, concerns, or anxieties .
A third reading recognises the suggestion mentioned in the previous paragraph that
some children may not have wanted to say anything at all, and that to make them contribute was
an infringement on their right to privacy. Cheeseman and Robertson (2006) recogni sed this in
early childhood practices o f pedagogical documentation. Young children‘s right to privacy seems
difficult for young children in group settings, where spaces and resources are shared by all

5 In the discussions of th e stories in which everyone contributed, everyone was given an object (it was a
block in week 10, a stick in week 11, and a stone in week 12) to symbolise their contribution. After each
participant expressed an opinion they placed their object in the middl e of the circle where a cumulative
construction formed.

137 children. By reading this practice as a potential infringement on privacy, my practice
contrad icted my ontological value of agency as a right to act as the individual chooses. The
concern for children‘s right to privacy signals a need for further attention to this in early
childhood practices through consideration of personal spaces and choice of m ode of
participation.
A fourth reading of this quandary could be that the expecta tion that all children make a
comment, be it verbal or dramati c, was a decision to address what Freire (1998) called the
educator‘s challenge of forming a balance between fre edom and limits. The teacher seemed to be
proposing that limits needed to be imposed to encourage dialogue of critical thinking. Perhaps
this was necessary to encourage engagement in critical thinking by all children, which Freire saw
as a quality of democ racy in education, along with respect for children‘s autonomy, identity , and
knowledge , and critical reflection on pedagogical practices. These other qualities of democracy
in education were a lso reflected upon in our facilitation of the storytelling works hops. First, w ith
regard to respecting autonomy and identities, the teacher and I endeavoured to position the
children politically by welcoming their opinions, decision -making, and initiated social actions to
redress injustices. Second, w e endeavoured to r espect children‘s knowledge by creating open
forums for children to articulate their understandings of story content, which was listened to in
the discussions, post -story activities , and follow -up conversations. T hird, the teacher and I
reflected criticall y upon our practice s through follow -up conversations, and I reflected further
through my reflective journaling. Collectively, through these practices the diff iculties of
cultivating a balance between freedom and authority were identified. The accounts desc ribed for
this motif only scrape the surface of exploring and cultivating democracy in education. The
qualities of democracy in education that Freire identified require ongoing awareness, reflection ,
and amendments to practice.
5.3.5 Closing Reflections on the Motif of Freedom of Expression
My support for freedom of expression is linked to my value of agency. As a motif in my practice,
freedom involved exploring opportunities for participants to express opinions, make choices, and
participate freely in ways that they choose, acknowledging the resistance and persistence of
freedom as articulated in the story of The Freedom Bird . The recurrence of a motif of freedom of
expression was a consistent reminder to listen to children‘s comments and notice their actio ns,
and question what, when and how children choose to be agentic.
Three intentional attempts were made to amend practice to provide scope for the
children‘s expression. One was the introduction of a workshop at the end of each cluster to
provide more spa ce for expression in response to all of the stories in that cluster; another sought
children‘s suggestions for the post -story activities. The third attempt required all children to
express a response to the stories in whole group discussions. Upon critical reflection of the
implementation of these amendments, I recognised that what the teacher or I may see as freedom

138
of expression may not be experienced as freedom by the children. For this reason freedom of
expression was recognised as an ideal but not fully realisable. Instead , the accounts discussed
acknowledged conflicting pedagogical practices that hindered or limited children‘s freedom of
expression or infringed children‘s rights to participation and privacy.
The story of The Freedom Bird offers an ana logy of the pursuit of freedom , with the
actions of the hunter representing the forces that impinged on attempts to support the children‘s
freedom of expression. These forces included emphases on classroom control, school
timetabling, primacy of pl ay in ea rly childhood settings, and same rules for everyone. Space for
diversity and freedom in children‘s expressi on was not always made possible. Opportunities for
freedom of expression were controlled, as in the account of the reflective workshop in week 5.
Children‘s freedom of expression was blocked and redirected, as in the response to Max‘s
suggestion for a post-story activity in week 6. Expression was expected , as was the practice in
the discussions of the stories in cluster -three. Examination of the confli cts, clashes , and
contradictions in the attempts by the teacher and me to embed further scope for children‘s
freedom of expression seemed to support the suggestion of Raywid (1987) that d emocracy is not
suited to classrooms where authority and control are at the core of pedagogy. Yet I am not
willing to accept inadequacies in pedagogical attempts to create further spaces for children‘s
freedom of expression as a fait accompli , nor as implausible as Raywid suggested . I still value
agency for freedom of expre ssion. Further exploration of the problems and possibilities for
democratic practice in classrooms is required.
Freedom emerged as a motif that was regularly debated and challenged. It raised
awareness of the impositions to freedom and the questioning of their effects. As a term, freedom
of expression is susceptible to ambiguity, so its meaning as a motif in my practice is rubbery. As
a motif in my practice, freedom of expression is about providing space for people to express
opinions, make choices, and p articipate freely. Yet by this I do not support opinions, choices, and
free participation that are harmful to others. This is where the values of agency, multiplicity,
responsiveness, and interconnectivity intersect to further clarify this motif of freedom of
expression. What I hope for through a motif of freedom of expression in my practice is to
continually question how support for the expression of multiplicity among participant‘s opinions,
choices, and free participation can be practiced as responsive a nd interconnected to others.
5.4 Motif Four: Walk in the Shoes of Another
From years of telling stories to a wide range of audiences, I have come to know that storytelling
as a live intimate art form possesses a capacity to speak to both the hearts and mi nds of listeners,
to leave lasting impressions, and evoke shifts in awareness and understanding. The vignette I
shared in the Prologue provided an account of one of the many experiences I have had where
storytelling inspired critical thinking and social ac tion. One of the intentions of this study was to
seek answers to the question ―What qualities of social justice storytelling support or provoke

139 young children‘s participation as active citizens?‖ Through close reflection of my storytelling
practice, I soug ht to understand what it was about storytelling that enabled understanding of
unjust experiences of others and provoked social actions to redress these experiences of injustice.
This motif explores my learning in terms of the relationship between storytell ing and social
actions. The King and the Fisherman portrays the motif, walk in the shoes of another .
5.4.1 The King and the Fisherman
Long ago, there was a king who ruled over a large kingdom. The king lived high on a
mountain in his castle. From his wind ow, he could look down on villages, which
surrounded his castle on three sides. On the fourth side, the king could see the sea, an
endless blue ribbon stretching out toward the horizon. It was a beautiful view from the
castle, and so the king assumed that everyone lived as happy a life as he. However,
among the people of the kingdom there was great unhappiness. Little rain had fallen in
more than a year. The drought brought hunger because the crops were meagre that
year. The people were hungry and feared st arvation. Yet the king's pantry was well –
stocked with foods from all over the world, including a hundred different delicacies. He
could have whatever he desired. The king was unaware of what was happening in his
kingdom because he rarely spoke with his peo ple and did not care much about their
lives.
The people of the kingdom were worried. They were starving and miserable. They
knew that the king had a castle filled with food and gold. They gathered and talked
about what to do. Some people suggested that they approach the king and ask for food
but everyone was afraid to go to the castle.
Finally, in desperation, an old fisherman volunteered to go speak with the king.
"Why not?" he reasoned, "I am old and will soon die, anyway. If I don't die of old age , I
will surely die of starvation." And so he set out, trudging up the mountain to the castle.
The king did not know this fisherman, so he rudely asked: ―Why are you here?‖
The fisherman described to the king how the people were starving for food, for e xercise,
and for fresh air. The king yawned looking bored and replied, "That is not my concern. I
don't feel hungry and I don't feel their hunger."
The fisherman could feel anger welling up inside him. He thought he would explode
with anger, but he real ized that this would accomplish nothing. He thought quickly.
Then he responded, "I see your point, Sir. And, naturally, you are right. And just so that
you know I mean you only well, I would like to invite you to come fishing with me. I have
heard that you love to go fishing and I know the most wonderful spot."
Now the king couldn't resist an invitation like this, and so he went with the
fisherman. They got into the fisherman's tiny, dilapidated, rowboat. The fisherman
rowed hard, and the factory owner r ested, sunning himself. Finally, after an hour of

140
rowing along the shore, they arrived at a beautiful little inlet. The king looked around,
but saw nothing but rocks and seaweed. "This is the spot from which we head out to sea,
Sir," said the old fisherman and he rowed straight out away from shore for another half
hour. Then the old fisherman pulled his oars into the boat, took an awl out of his back
pocket, and began chipping a hole in the bottom of the boat under his seat.
"What are you doing, old man?" exclaimed the king in alarm. "Stop that this instant!
Do you realize what you're doing? You're going to sink the boat!"
"Yes, I know. That is what I intend to do," responded the fisherman quietly. "I am trying
the sink the boat. I am so hungry, like all the people in your kingdom, that I want to die."
"But I do not want to die!!" shouted the king. "No, Sir. I know that. That is why I am
only making a hole under my seat in the boat, at my end of the boat. What happens at
your end of the boat is not my conc ern."
The king’s anger turned to laughing, and then to sadness and he eventually spoke:
"I see what you are saying, old man. You have made your point well. I have closed my
eyes to what others feel because I did not feel it myself. Please row me back to shore –
safely – and I will open my food stores. And I thank you, fisherman, for your great
wisdom in teaching me a lesson I sorely needed to learn."
The fisherman rowed the leaking boat back to shore as water slowly trickled into
the boat . In desper ation, the king helped with his bare hands. When they made it ashore
the king did two things: he promptly arranged for food to be shared and he invited the
fisherman to be his trusted advisor. And so the king and the fisherman became good
friends, and freq uently met to talk business. (Jacobs Sife, 2007)
In this story, the king came to understand the plight of the people through a concrete
experience that placed him in a similar plight to the people, that is, the impending threat of death.
When the fisherma n first approached the king, his response to the people‘s starvation was that it
did not concern him. His pantry was full, so he had no understanding of starvation. This story
can be critiqued based on the idea that justice requires engagement with the con crete other
(Benhabib, 1986, 1992). Through experiences with the concrete other, an understanding of an
individual‘s history, identity, and affective -emotional constitution can be acquired. The king had
a generalised view of the people. Not until he experi enced suffering through a concrete
experience with the fisherman did he develop an understanding of the plight of the people. The
following section discusses how walk in the shoes of another is a metaphor for engagement with
the concrete other (5.4.2). Thi s is followed by discussion of aesthetic qualities (5.4.3), sharing
tragedy (5.4.5), and compassion leading to action (5.4.6), which are posed as findings to the
research subquestion ―What qualities of social justice storytelling support or provoke young
children‘s participation as active citizens?‖ Closing reflections of meanings of a motif of walk in
the shoes of another are then shared (5.4.7).

141 5.4.2 Engagement with the Concrete Other
The phrase walk in the shoes of another as an expression of develop ing sympathy for another‘s
position emerged as a motif in what steered my selection and crafting of stories. This motif of
feeling sympathy for another was most evident in the stories that I shared based on real lives,
such as Iqbal’s Story (see Appendix H ) and Craig’s Story (see Appendix I). This is noted in
Table 5.1, which presents a record of data entries that were coded as evidence of children
expressing sympathetic responses to stories told in the study.
Table 5.1. Record of sympathetic responses to each story told in the study .
Story Number of sympathetic responses from
children
The Freedom Bird 3
Awi Usdi 1
The Lonely Coxen‘s Fig -parrot 6
Two Brothers 5
Iqbal‘s Story 19
Craig‘s Story 18
The Rich Factory Owner and the Wise
Old Woman 2
Two Bl ocks 6
The GREED Machine 4
Two Rocks 10

Sympathetic responses were identified when children associated a feeling or expressed
care for those who experienced suffering in the stories. Sympathetic responses to stories require
imagination and emotional r eceptivity (Nussbaum, 1997). For example, the following is Juliet‘s
response to Craig’s Story , which told the story of Craig Kielburger becoming a child activist
after learning of Iqbal Masih‘s experience as a child labourer.
Juliet: I was worried becaus e all of those people who were forced to work in the
factory. I felt sad for them, ‘cos they were FORCED. (Lines 89 -90 W7
5/09/2007)
Juliet expressed feelings of concern and sadness for those who were forced to work in the
factory. Immediately after I ende d Craig’s Story , Molly wanted to help the children who were
forced to work under harsh conditions, which was reiterated by Declan.
Molly: To go on holidays there and help them.
Louise: Is that what you want to do?
Molly: Go there to help them.
Louis e: Molly really wants to help them. She wants to go these countries that I
told you about.
Declan: Me too! I was going to say the same. (Lines 326 -330 W7 5/09/2007)

142
Both Molly and Declan seemed to have felt the suffering in the story so strongly that the y wanted
to go there and help. The stories based on real lives seemed to possess a greater capacity to evoke
a shift in understanding of the other, which aligns with Benhabib‘s (1986, 1992) recognition that
justice requires engagement with the concrete oth er. Iqbal’s Story and Craig’s Story were both
about real life experiences of other children, not generalised accounts of others. By being real
accounts, the children could connect with the children in the stories, perhaps imagining that the
suffering could happen to them. Emotive connection with an individual‘s experience of injustice
seemed to be one quality of social justice storytelling that may have led to young children‘s
active citizenship. However, this could have been presented as a report or in a p icture book.
What were the qualities of live storytelling that provoked emotive connection as a motivator for
young children‘s active citizenship participation?
5.4.3 Aesthetic Qualities of Storytelling
According to Abbs (1989) and Greene (1995) an aesthet ic encounter cultivates a sensuous and
poetic mode of knowing and affective responses. If storytelling is understood as an aesthetic
encounter , then sensuous and poetic modes of knowing may have been cultivated through
descriptive language, use of gesture, tone to evoke imagery, and mood to recreate the events in
the story. Care was taken to evoke imagery and mood with the intent of bringing the stories alive
or, as Benjamin (1955/1999) described, making the story the experience of those who are
listening .
To identify aesthetic qualities of storytelling that may have contributed to many
children expressing sympathetic responses, I explain how I crafted and told Iqbal’s Story . This
story is examined because it evoked the most sympathetic responses (Table 5. 1), as well as
triggered most of the children‘s enacted social actions (Figure 5.3). I crafted this story from
biographical details of child labourer and activist Iqbal Masih (1982 -1995), which I acquired
from books (Crofts, 2006; Kielburger, 1998) and web sites (The World Children's Prize for the
Rights of the Child, n.d). The register (Stephens and McCallum, 1998) in which I told Iqbal’s
Story involved narration through an emotive mode. I purposefully chose to share excerpts of
Iqbal Masih‘s life because h e was a child who advocated for children‘s rights. The story told of
Iqbal and his friends having their rights to freedom being abused, but also told of Iqbal
advocating for himself and others to ensure their rights were honoured. Following the proposal
for narrative interpretation suggested by Stephens (1992), I read the significance of Iqbal’s Story
as the inspiration of Iqbal‘s advocacy for children‘s rights, given his youth and adverse situation.
I told this story in week 6 and began by asking the chi ldren to close their eyes whilst I
described a two -roomed home that a young boy shared with his mother and sister, in which they
each had a string bed in one room. The other room was for cooking. Apart from the clothes Iqbal
wore, the only thing he could c all his own was an old battered cricket bat. The imagery that I

143 painted with words was intended to set the scene of Iqbal’s Story. It left an impression, as noted
in Carl‘s account of what he thought was important to tell his family about the story.
Carl: That he was very poor and that he had no mattress on his bed. (Line 174
W7 CC 5/09/2007)
Denmark: I told my family. I told them this morning … I was talking about the poor
stories … the one where the kid only had a cricket bat for a toy. (Lines
62, 72, 74 W8 CC12/09/2007)
In week 13, when the children told their stories, Scott told this story:
Scott: It‘s a very small home, which they didn‘t have a wall here and they didn‘t
have a roof and they didn‘t have a kitchen or anything else. No. No
lounge if they wanted to watch TV, they didn‘t have that. They only had
a bedroom. (W13 /11/2007)
The home Scott described in his story emphasised what was missing, which in some ways
seemed to resonate with how I described Iqbal‘s home in Iqbal’s Story, setting a scene of
difference to the physical environments of the participant children‘s homes. The description that
I provided of Iqbal‘s home was based on what I had read in biographical details of his life. It was
provided as fulfilling the conventional sto rytelling strategy of setting the scene (McKay &
Dudley, 1996). The imagery of Iqbal‘s home seemed to stay with some children, perhaps due to
the difference of it when compared with their own homes. It seems that Carl viewed sleeping
without a mattress as significant, just as Denmark viewed having only a cricket bat for a toy as
significant. The image of a small home with one room seemed to stay with Scott, as he played it
out in his story in week 13. Viewed in this way, these responses can be read as what these three
boys read as elements of significance in Iqbal’s Story : a deficiency of belongings.
Throughout Iqbal’s Story , I used carefully chosen words, pace and gesture, assuming
an emotive mode for the register of my telling of Iqbal‘s suffering, braver y, and achievements in
a respectful way. The following comment by Molly gives an account of the influence of emotive
descriptive language and gesture used in telling Iqbal’s Story .
Molly: I imagined I was the one who worked in the carpet factory and when I was
sleeping —he [carpet factory owner] kept on dragging me out of the blankets
when I was cold. (Lines 51 -52 W6 C1 31/08/2007)
Descriptive language with synergised gestures appeared to have provoked Molly to imagine
herself experiencing Iqbal’s Story .
To further facilitate the children‘s engagement with the story, I projected photos of Iqbal
on a screen and invited the children to assume roles in the story. At one point I asked the children
to role play working in the carpet factory. They squatted on their haunches in rows, knotting
threads with their hands. The teacher guided their expression by saying:

144
Teacher: You are EXHAUSTED, UNHAPPY, TIRED, you‘ve been doing this for
YEARS, day in day out. You haven‘t played sport for weeks. (Line 109 –
111W6 30/08/2 007)
In this context, I asked Molly what she was thinking about, to which she replied:
Molly: I‘m imagining what it would be like to play. (Line 121 W6 30/08/2007)
Molly knows what it is like to play. She engaged in play in the classroom on a regular bas is. To
shift to a place in which she ―imagined what it would be like to play‖ was a significantly
different position for Molly. This comment can be read as suggestive of the descriptive and
expressive accounts of Iqbal‘s experiences being felt by Molly so that she placed herself in the
shoes of another. Through story and drama the teacher and I facilitated acts with the intent, as
Benjamin (1955/1999) stated, of making the story the experience of the listener.
I ended the story by inviting Max to be Iqbal returning to his village in Pakistan after
his trip to Sweden and the USA to raise awareness of child labour, and the rest of the class to
cheer. Then I asked Fergie to place a necklace of threaded flowers around Max‘s neck to honour
his return. In role a s Iqbal, Max expressed pride and bowed spontaneously. This was a moment
of strong connection to the story that both the teacher and I noticed.
Teacher: He was really in role. Understanding what storytelling is really about. It is
not just sit and listen. It is whole thinking. (W6 TC 31/08/2007)
Max seemed very focused in his portrayal of Iqbal; he took his role seriously and responded
aptly to my narration of the story. In the discussion, Max gave this account of his experience of
being in the story.
Max: When they [carpet customers] buying, and I use my hands and I use my teeth
to work, to make it more easier for me. (Line 314 -315 W6 30/08/2007)
This comment indicates that Max felt like he was in the story, because of his use of personal
pronouns and ex pression of effort to work more efficiently (with hands and teeth) to meet the
demand for carpets. Perhaps being assigned the role of Iqbal may have aided his capacity to
imagine and connect with the story, so that he saw the story as his own experience. T his account
can be read as illustrating the capacity of drama and storytelling to enable connections with
others (Abbs, 1989; Arendt, 1958/1998; Benjamin, 1955/1999).
Iqbal’s Story certainly cultivated affective responses, indicated by the 19 sympathetic
responses noted in Table 5.1 and the examples discussed above. For some the affect was lasting,
as evidenced in Max‘s comments below. This is Max‘s explanation for choosing Iqbal to
interview through the dramatic convention called hot seat (as noted earlie r in discussion on
workshop 5) used in workshop 9, three weeks after hearing the story.
Max: Because the other boy who‘s sick and the old man who‘s so angry hit the
poor boy who sick. The poor kid who sick, so that why more important

145 (rests his head in his hand with downward, despondent gaze ). (Line 164 -168
W9 19/09/2007)
Even though it was three weeks after I had shared Iqbal’s Story with the class, Max was still
expressing emotive responses to the unfair treatment of Iqbal‘s friend in the story. Would the
children have felt the same degree of emotion if they had simply heard information about child
labour? Max‘s comment above indicates that he saw Iqbal’s Story as significant because of the
unfair treatment of a sick child.
Another example of storytel ling provoking a lasting impression and building
knowledge is evident in the teacher‘s comments below where she speaks about differences
between the engagement of the Prep class and their Year 6 buddies in a child labour project.
Teacher: The Year 6s h ave been working on machines that could assist the lives of
people in Pakistan and the Prep‘s have really contributed. Year 6s were
really surprised how much they knew. When talking about it, it was actually
the Prep‘s that talked more . (Lines 102 -104 W12 TC 24/10/2007)
The Year 6 assessment task of designing and making a machine that would assist the
economically poor people of Pakistan grew out of members of the Prep class sharing an account
of Iqbal’s Story with their Year 6 buddies. The Year 6 class was stunned by th is recount of
Iqbal’s Story . This led the Year 6 teacher to orchestrate a unit of learning on the issue of child
labour for all the Year 6 classes, and for the rest of the year when the Prep class and Year 6 class
met, the focus of their inve stigations was child labour. The teacher‘s comment suggests a marked
difference in knowledge (and perhaps awareness and understanding) between the Prep children
who had experienced three storytelling workshops that explored the issue of child labour in
Pakistan, and the Year 6 children who had investigated child labour through non -narrative
means. This experience suggests that real life stories told with descriptive language to paint
images of scenes and events, accompanied by vocal and kinaesthetic express ion to convey
feelings and mood, offer scope for deeper emotive connection between listeners and the
characters in stories. Further to this, the comment by the teacher indicates that the storytelling
experience created knowledge for the Prep children about child labour, enabling them to engage
in dialogue with older others.
Connection between story and imagination has been theorised by philosophers such as
Benjamin (1955/1999) and Nussbaum (1997), along with storytellers such as Zipes (1995, 2004).
The no tion of sympathetic imagination (Nussbaum) aided understanding of the aesthetic qualities
that provoke young children‘s emotive connection with those who experience injustice as a
precursor to active citizenship participation . According to Nussbaum, storyt elling can enable
listeners to imagine and identify with the feelings of others. Stories can provide inside views of
people‘s feelings that are not usually on display. Connection with these feelings can l ead to
compassion for another, as the listener imagi nes this suffering person as if she is involved. This

146
builds on Benhabib‘s (1986, 1992) suggestion that justice requires engagement with the
‗concrete other‘. By bring ing imagination into the equation, the children imagined feeling
another‘s experience of suffering.
In response to my query as to how storytelling of real life experiences, in particularly
Iqbal’s Story , provoked sympathetic responses that led to enacted social actions, two factors are
apparent in the data presented thus far. One factor was the use of emotive and descriptive
imagery, and another factor was children‘s active participation in the story. Based on recognition
of the influence of these factors, I continued to include these factors in my practice. I
endeavoured to pay particular attention to providing clear imagery that set the scene for each
subsequent story , using words, media , and props. I incorporated ways that children could
actively ‗be‘ in the story, through contributing suggestions to the stories and drawing on dramatic
conventions of role -play, gossip mill, chants.
5.4.4 Sharing Tragedy
Another factor that may have been particularly pertinent to Iqbal’s Story could be the degree of
tragedy in the story. The sharing of tragedy may be a significant factor, as Nussbaum (199 7)
recommended sharing tragedies with children as a means of building compassion and active
citizenship. Her suggestion was that tragedies acquaint children with understandings of the tragic
events that may happen in a human life but also equip them with u nderstanding of diversity of
choice of action. In this way, as noted in the children‘s responses to Iqbal’s Story , hearing of
tragedy through story can promote or provoke civic participation as global citizens who act for
humanity.
This study was approac hed with a view that young children possess the capacity to
engage with tragedy. Some adults who are influenced by a metanarrative of children as innocent
may be alarmed at sharing stories such as Iqbal’s Story with young children, as they choose to
protec t young children from what they view as tragedy. As noted previously, a metanarrative of
childhood innocence shapes a culture of sharing sanitised stories with young children (Zipes,
1983, 1994). The children‘s responses to stories of tragedy indicate that they are capable of
engaging with tragedies. The communal space created by live storytelling enabled the weight of
tragedies to be shared. Arendt (1958/1998) saw significant merit in the capacity of storytelling to
bear the weight of suffering. With this understanding, storytelling provided space for airing
emotions and forging solidarity through sharing. To create spaces where the children‘s thoughts
and feelings could be expressed and shared, a number of opportunities were provided for the
children to ex press feelings, make comment, and ask questions within whole group discussions,
small group activities, and follow -up conversations. In addition, a transcript of each story was
sent home with each child on the day it was shared (as was requested by a paren t), so that
families were aware of the story content and could support discussions of the story at home.

147 Collectively, all of these strategies offered means for the children to process their thoughts and
feelings in response to the tragedies.
An example o f a child expressing her thoughts and feelings in response to a tragedy
occurred when Finlay shared in a follow -up conversation that she had a bad dream after hearing
Iqbal’s Story .
Finlay: It was like the story but it got a little bit scarier.
…
Every night the man, when Iqbal went home, the carpet factory man went
after him and pulled him back. (Lines 34 -39 W6 CC 31/07/2007)
The follow -up conversation provided a space for Finlay to share her dream, which opened the
door for Molly to share that s he also had a dream where she was working in the factory. I then
asked the group, ―What do you think you can do about bad dreams?‖ (Line 55 W6 CC
31/07/2007). Molly, David and Ella offered these suggestions:
Molly: Think of good stories. (Line 58)
David : Tell people just in case it is still on your mind —Tell it out. (Line 65)
Ella: I‘d draw a picture. (Line 70 W6 CC 31/07/2007)
This discussion was the only occasion the teacher and I were aware of any child sharing an
account of being troubled by any of the stories of distress. The intimacy of this follow -up
conversation seemed to cultivate a space where uncomfortable feelings could be aired,
identification with others who felt the same realised, and practical strategies offered by peers. In
this way t he communal space of storytelling and discussion supported the weight of felt emotions
in response to tragedies.
5.4.5 Compassion Leads to Action
The preceding discussions have identified the significance of sharing real life experiences,
applying aesthet ic qualities of sensuous and poetic language, dramatic engagement of audience,
and sharing of tragedies. They indicate the capacity of storytelling to provoke emotive and
sympathetic responses from young children. However, this contributes only some unders tanding
to the research question, ― What qualities of social justice storytelling support or provoke young
children‘s participation as active citizens?‖ What is the link between emotive and sympathetic
responses and active citizenship? What motivates young children to be active citizens? To
explore what provoked or motivated young children to be active citizens, examples of some of
the children‘s suggestions of social actions are considered.
According to Nussbaum (1997), compassion is necessary for citizen ship responsibility,
and as established above, narratives can cultivate compassion. Nussbaum suggested that to
nurture citizenship responsibility requires specific teaching intervention, which involves not only
sharing tragedies that provoke sympathetic re sponses, but also asking critical questions about the

148
experiences in the tragedies. In the follow -up conversation in week 6, after discussing what to do
if you have a bad dream, I proposed:
Louise: The other thing is if you do something about it, it helps —other than
feeling sad about it how dreadful that is. I wonder if there is something
we can do to help these children. (Lines 73 -75 W6 CC 31/07/2007)
The children readily made suggestions for ways to help children harshly affected by child labour.
Molly : We could go over, someone could go over, someone could send an email to
the person who owns the carpet factory and tell them to stop being greedy.
(Lines 80 -81 W6 CC 31/07/2007)
Ella: If I was 15, and I was a big girl, and I was very big, and my mum let me go
by myself then I would help children there. (Lines 98 -99 W6 CC
31/07/2007)
The conversation then flowed onto ideas about bringing the child labourers mentioned in Iqbal’s
Story to the Blue school, as they discussed where an extra classroom could be built, and where
the children could play whilst the building was being constructed. Their enthusiasm and ideas
flourished for ‗collecting‘ these children and bringing them to Australia. Such suggestions
sparked concerns that I had inadvertently cultivat ed ‗missionary -like‘ attitudes that support
children being taken from their families, home and culture; especially, when Ella added:
Ella: We could build a carpet factory for them and they will say, ―Oh! There is the
carpet factory.‖ (Lines 120 -121 W6 CI 31/07/2007)
Viruru (2008) warned of the danger of western imperialist conceptions of work and children
being projected upon other nations‘ practices. She argued that the complexities of individual
circumstances are denied through universal conceptions o f work and children. Perhaps by asking,
―what can we do to help‖ promoted suggestions of salvation. I became aware of a need share
another story about child labour in an effort to make visible these complexities through another
perspective.
After Iqbal’s Story , I chose to tell Craig’s Story, about Craig Kielburger‘s experience
of establishing the Free the Children network (discussed in Chapter 2) . In Craig’s Story the
children came to hear a range of social actions that Free the Children have employed to redress
the suffering of child labour. At the time I thought Craig’s Story would be a suitable sequel to
Iqbal’s Story and the children‘s interest in taking action on child labour. To give further
perspective to the children‘s suggestions for social action s, I thought that Craig’s Story would
provide additional understanding of conditions in which child labour occurs, along with
understanding of social actions that others have implemented to redress the suffering of child
labour. In the discussion after thi s story, almost every child contributed an idea for a social action
to assist child workers. There were 14 suggestions of social actions noted in the discussion after
Craig’s Story (see Week 7, Table 4.2) , which was the largest number of social actions sug gested

149 in a storytelling workshop. None of the children suggested taking the children away from their
families, home or culture in this discussion; all of the suggestions offered resource support,
except for Molly‘s suggestion that seemed to promote advoca cy by children disadvantaged by
child labour themselves.
Molly: We could send some of these ( a small placard on a stick saying: ― Free
the Children ‖) to them. Some signs like this to them. (Line 405 W7
3/09/2007)
The small placard was a replica of a ban ner that was used at a stop child labour rally in India that
Craig Kielburger attended. A photo of this scene was shared as part of the slide show in telling
Craig’s Story . In the storytelling workshop based on Craig’s Story this small placard was the
object6 that was passed from speaker to speaker in the critical discussion. The telling of Craig’s
Story about enacted social actions to redress child labour seemed to cultivate a shift in the
children‘s suggestions of social actions to offer support where the children who had experienced
injustice lived.
Although there was a shift in the children‘s suggestions of actions I am not suggesting
that the telling of Craig’s Story resolved all concerns regarding the projection of western
imperialist conceptions of c hildren and work on other nation‘s practices. There continued to be
many uneasy moments when the children seemed to view the issue of child labour in terms of a
simple binary of good versus evil (this is discussed further in Chapter 7), and the teacher and me
supporting the projection of our western practices, such as compulsory schooling. The
tremendous loss and suffering in Iqbal’s Story and Craig’s Story seemed to spark a stronger fire
in the children‘s compassion for child labourers that fuelled their m otivation for action.
However, it was messy business because the children, teacher and I were so removed from the
socio -cultural context of the children in Iqbal’s Story and Craig’s Story to understand the
complexities and honour the agency of these childr en. We ran the risk of deciding what was best
for others. Questions of What does this story ask me to care about?; and What does this story ask
me to do? (Nussbaum, 1997) may offer some way out of the mess. These questions place
emphasis on the listener to nominate what they care about and what they want to do, rather than
making suggestions in the interests of others.
5.4.6 Closing Reflections on the Motif of Walk in the Shoes of Another
Walk in the shoes of another became a recurring motif in my pract ice of social justice storytelling
because recognising that bringing unjust experiences of others alive through stories can cultivate
awareness, compassion and action to redress injustices. In the same way that the fisherman
created a situation for the kin g to experience his life being threatened and to cultivate compassion

6 Each week (in Cluster s one and two) I supplied a different object that symbolised the story as the
indicator of who was speaking in the story critique.

150
for the predicament of the people , the stories I told endeavoured to cultivate compassion toward
others who experience injustice . Sharing of experiences of others through story seemed to
broaden the children‘s understandings of humanity, through the diversity of human experience.
Explanations of the motif walk in the shoes of another produced some answers to the
subquestion, ―What qualities of social justice storytelling support or provo ke young children‘s
participation as active citizens?‖ Recognising the recurring motif enabled identification of the
following qualities, which contributed to a greater number of sympathetic responses and
suggestions of social actions: a) biographical trag edies, b) aesthetic qualities (e.g., descriptive
language), c) active participation of children in the story, and d) opportunities for the children to
express opinions and feelings about the stories. These qualities were identified through
reflections upon my practice and guided the amendments and shaping of subsequent workshops.
This is not to say I continued to tell biographical tragedies. The concern of projecting western
imperialist conceptions onto other nation‘s practices also informed my practice and steered me to
shape fictitious stories in Cluster -three, which brought together many previous themes in an
effort to support children‘s meaning -making of social justice as explored in the stories so far.
5.5 Cluster -three: Bringing It All Together
At the start of Cluster -three I knew it would be the last cluster, as the school year was ending.
With a view to imposed closure, I endeavoured to tie all the story themes together to create a
cohesive form that could support young children‘s meaning -making of s ocial justice issues and
active citizenship. Cluster -three was also a space to consolidate what I had learned in my pursuit
of further embedding my values within my storytelling practice. Themes and features of the
stories shared in cluster s one and two me rged. What was learned through exploration of the
motifs of story -tailoring, spinning and weaving, freedom of expression and walk in the shoes of
another , was consolidated with the four motifs functioning collectively in my storytelling
practice.
5.5.1 Tw o Blocks
The story told first in Cluster -three (week 10) was Two Blocks (see Appendix K), which I wrote
to follow on from the theme of ―it‘s unfair‖, which had a strong presence in week 9 (the
summative workshop at the end of cluster -two). In week 9, a small group of children played the
Oxfam game It’s just not fair (Oxfam GB, n.d.) , which was designed for children aged 4 to 11 to
experience unequal trading relationships. The children played in teams of three, yet there was a
deliberately unequal distribut ion of resources between teams. Juliet was in the team that had the
least resources, yet her team members did not give her a turn, which upset Juliet and provoked
much discussion about different ways to share resources and consider others. In the debriefin g
interview that week with the teacher, this was the first point that the teacher raised with regard to
my question of Where to next?

151 Teacher: I think what came up right at the end with what Juliet was saying, ―How I
felt it was so unfair‖, that really is something that kids understand really
well and have stories to tell about it. ‘Cos they always struggle with this.
(Lines 7 -9 W9 TC 19/09/2007)
The teacher‘s comment about how the experience of unfairness is part of children‘s everyday
lives led me to w rite a story that was based on a context relevant to children‘s lives. I fabricated
and tailored the story based on the remnant of ―it‘s unfair‖, with children‘s interest in block play
and concern for equitable block distribution. Many of the children play ed with the blocks on a
regular basis, yet there were frequent disputes over sharing blocks. The teacher and I were
interested to see if the children could apply their understandings of unfairness gained through a
story to their own interactions.
The sto ry told of five children who had full access to all blocks except five. The
remaining 15 children played with these five blocks. I created the story for the children of the
study. It was a raw story that was not bound to honour the heritage of tradition or the accuracy of
facts, as was the case with previous folktales or life stories that I shared. It had grown out of my
imagination, so it was organic and much more open to co -storytelling with the children. I strung
together the children‘s contributions mad e throughout the story whilst endeavouring to maintain
the interconnectivity and cohesiveness of the story. The collective nature of st orytelling that
Benjamin (1955/ 1999) recogni sed was further embraced through this genre of co -storytelling.
Through co -storytelling I aimed to support my values of agency, responsiveness , and
interconnectivity by creating space for children‘s contributions, which I wove into the story . Two
Blocks involved the antagonists being subjected to a walk in the shoes of another experience to
cultivate a shift in their attitude. This took place when the five children who played with most of
the blocks could not access their blocks because the lock on the cupboard that protected their
blocks from the other children jammed. In time thes e five children came to learn from the other
children many ways to play with only a few blocks. The children also experienced this firsthand
as they role played the children in the story.
In this story, all four motifs were present. Story -tailoring was pr esent in my
customi sing of the story for the class. The motif of s pinning and weaving was present in my
telling, spinning , and weaving together the children‘s ideas. Freedom of expression was present
in children‘s contributions to the stories. Walk in the shoes of another was present as a theme that
enabled learning of another‘s position in the story.
5.5.2 The GREED Machine and Two Rocks
The four motifs continued to function collectively in the following two stories that I shared in
cluster three, The GR EED Machine (Appendix L) and Two Rocks (Appendix M). These two
stories patched together remnants from all the previous stories, tailored into a patchwork vest (or
perhaps it was just a button) in the hope that it would be worn close to the children, so the stories

152
of the stories of the stories would stay with them and settle on their beings as their knowledge of
the world grows. The story of The GREED Machine grew out of recognition of the underlying
theme of greed across the previous stories and a decision by the teacher and me to further explore
inequitable distribution of resources that occurred in Two Blocks . The teacher and I discussed a
number of possible stories, such as The Giving Tree by Shel Siverstein (1977), The Lorax by Dr
Seuss (1972), and folk tales such as It Couldn’t be Worse and The Little Old Lady in the Vinegar
Bottle . After much pondering over these stories and consideration of the stories and themes
explored previously , I wrote the story The GREED Machine . It was a tale of two countries:
Greenland and Black -n-White land7, and the unequal distribution of resources that occurred
between the two countries when a man in Greenland invented the GREED (Great Reproducer of
Everything Everyone Desires) machine. The man came to learn the failings of his GREED
machine through the wisdom of a beggar woman who explained the never -ending nature of
greed through a magic bowl that could not be filled. This story ended with the GREED machine
inventor hosting a meeting seeking solutions to rectify the damage the GREED Machine had
created.
The ideas that were offered in the meeting at the end of The GREED Machine were
then included in the next story Two Rocks , which was a sequel to The GREED Machine . When
the children‘s suggestions were implemented in Two Ro cks, the Greenlanders were not open to
sharing their land with Black -n-Whiters. Similar behaviours emerged that occurred in Two
Blocks , such as the Greenlanders being overly protective of their possessions, and the Black -n-
Whiters experiencing exclusion an d despair at their scarcity of resources. The wise old woman
helped to resolve the conflict, and the Coxen‘s fig-parrot re -appeared as a sign of hope.
My creation of stories specifically for the Prep class seemed to further enhance
intimacy and a communa l climate in the storytelling workshops. The motif of spinning and
weaving continued its presence along with the corresponding value of interconnectivity by
themes and characters from previous stories being woven together in these last two stories.
Figure 5.4 presents a diagram of the interconnectivity of themes from the stories in cluster -three.
Two Blocks and The GREED Machine both explored the theme of inequitable distribution of
resources, from a class context to a bi -nation context. Two Rocks made visi ble the secondary
impacts of greed: exclusion and dislocation.
By bringing together themes and characters from previous stories, the children were
reminded of them and came to acknowledge further connections of meaning. After telling
The GREED Machine , I asked the children if this story reminded them of another story.

7 The names of these two countries were simpl y based on the colour/s of the material that
represented each country in my storytelling of The GREED Machine and Two Rocks .

153 Many of the children identified links between themes and characters in The GREED
Machine and other stories that I had previously told.
Max: It reminded me of the Coxen‘s fig -parrot, ‘cos lik e the birds dying, ‘cos the
animals dying from this story and like a hunter killing them, [yet] it was a
machine. Animals, the animals have no more food, so that‘s why I
remember. (Lines 233 -235 W11 15/10/2007)
Patrick: I was thinking about the story of t he wise old woman …‘cos she wanted
to share some food. (Lines 249 & 255 W11 15/10/2007)
Tony: It reminded me of Iqbal, ‘cos the animals were poor and all dying and
Iqbal he was poor. (Lines 267 -270 W11 15/10/2007)
Mat: It was like the Coxen‘s fig -parrot. They chopped down the trees. (Lines
344 & 346 W11 15/10/2007)

Figure 5.4. Cluster -three: Interconnectivity of themes from Cluster -one and Cluster -two.
Each of these children was capable of expressing verbal links be tween themes and
characters from The GREED Machine and previous stories. Mat had only begun to learn
English earlier that year, and the teacher viewed Patrick‘s thinking as ―very disconnected‖
and ―developmentally very young‖ (Line 137, 156 W5 TC 22/08/200 7), so for these two
children, their capacity to build connections was appreciated by the teacher and me. By
asking the children which parts of The GREED Machine reminded them of other stories, the
teacher and I were able to see the children‘s meaning -maki ng between the stories.

154
Teacher: Talk about being in the third cluster … you can really see what they
know. They haven‘t forgotten what started, and where they‘ve
come, and where they are at now. That was really good. Wow that‘s
fantastic! (Lines 18 -21 W 11 TC 17/10/2007)
The provision of opportunity for the children to reflect over past stories via storytelling and
discussion worked to provide evidence of the children‘s memories of the stories and their
capacity to recogni se connections between the storie s, which in turn were clear feedback of
the stories leaving lasting impressions.
Efforts to further support children‘s freedom of expression came into fruition th rough
the three stories of cluster -three, all being self -authored for the class at the time o f the study.
Their raw and loose nature offered many openings for the children‘s contributions, which I wove
into the stories so that a sense of coll ective ownership was nurtured. This genre of co -storytelling
position ed the children as active members of a community. The community was one that we
collectively created through the study, and included the children, teacher, teacher aide , and
myself.
Cluster -three also led to the practice of children offering suggestions for the post -story
activities continuin g from Cluster -two. With the stories being fictitious, the children‘s
suggestions for social actions stopp ed. As noted in Table 4.2 , there were no data entries of
suggestions of social actions after week 8. Instead , the children seemed to explore story con tent
through drawing, block play, and story making. Drawing and block construction continued as
recurrent requests as post -story activities for each of the workshops in Cluster -three, which was
discussed as a pattern in 5.3.3. In week 13, as the summative workshop for Cluster -three, the
children told stories to me. Some of the themes that emerged in the children‘s stories were:
mutiny against factory owner, migration, endangered species, and environmental degradation.
Some of the ideas that the children exp lored in their block play and story -making are analysed in
Chapter 7 to investigate who young children might be as citizens.
My storytelling with this class ended with the Two Rocks story . To conclude, I
thought carefully about the last message to leave w ith the children as I wove many of the
themes and characters from previous stories together. I decided to leave traces of hope by
painting a closing image of trees being planted and a sighting of a Coxen‘s fig -parrot. This
may seem idealistic, but as Craig Kielburger (1998) claimed, hope sustains motivation for
change for a better tomorrow. Many of the children‘s faces came alive at the sighting of a
Coxen‘s fig -parrot in the story. Declan made the following comment in the discussion after
the story.
Declan: Oh yeah that was so COO -OL ( smiles ). I wonder how it [Coxen‘s fig –
parrot] could appear out of nowhere. (Lines 261 -262 W12 23/10/2007)

155 At the follow -up conversation the next day, Denmark gave an account of The Two Rocks story to
David who had been away , with his final statement being:
Denmark: And at the end there was the Coxen‘s fig -parrot and things only got
better. (Line 6 W12 CC 24/10/2007)
The children seemed to appreciate the reappearance of the Coxen‘s fig -parrot. Declan seemed to
express joy and wonder. Denmark clearly read the same significance of hope as I intended with
―things only got better‖. These comments suggest the influence of my practice of social justice
storytelling in the learning of young children as active citizens.
Evidence of ongoing influence was not captured. My visits to the class ended in
November, a time of the year in which the teacher was consumed by school, curriculum and
assessment requirements. The teacher was frustrated by this as expressed in her comment:
Teache r: If you could imagine having a classroom where this would have been my
whole focus , day in and day out . It would have been awesome! (Lines
91-92 W13 TC 11/11/2007)
What the teacher did manage to continue beyond my visits was discussion of child labour and
schooling in Pakistan . She also made email contact with a girls ‘ school in Pakistan through
collaboration with their Year 6 buddy class and teacher. Then the school year ended and the
children and teachers moved onto other classes, other countries and other careers.
5.6 Conclusion
This chapter told the story of what informed and steered my storytelling practice. It provides a
map of the study as three cluster s, plotting the interconnectivity between the 10 stories told,
which have been discussed and pre sented in Figures 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 and 5.4. Figure 5.5 presents a
visual view of the whole study as three linked cluster s. The interconnections presented in each of
these diagrams are my readings of what the children saw as commonly significant in the stories
and their relevance with subsequent and preceding stories. I reflected on my practice by
assessing it against my research values in accordance with a living educational theory approach
to practitioner research (Whitehead & McNiff, 2006). Reflections on my practice in relation to
my research values brought realisation that at times my practice contradicted my values. To
address these contradictions and endeavour to honour these values in my practice I made
decisions and amended my practice. This chapter tol d of my learning as a storytelling teacher
and how it was shaped by others, as each decision to alter my practice was informed by the
children and teacher‘s respons es to my storytelling practice.

156

Figure 5.5. The study represented as three linked clusters.

157 Four motifs emerged from reflections of my practice in relation to my values.
Recognition of the motifs story -tailori ng, spinning and weaving, freedom of expression and walk
in the shoes of another worked to guide my practice in relation to provoking young children‘s
active citizenship. I did not name these motifs as such until after data collection, yet they were
presen t in my decision -making about my storytelling practice throughout data collection. These
motifs steered and shaped my practice, yet they are not proposed as a conclusive list or a recipe.
Instead explanations of these motifs bring understandings of the inf luences in my practice of
social justice storytelling. The motifs also offer points of attention for future practice.
1. To notice where listeners take a story, and respond , adapt , and welcom e their
contributions.
2. To spin and weave elements of stories, and be attentive to what the
interconnections set in motion.
3. To support freedom of expression for participants in the ways they choose to be
agentic within a responsive and considerate climate .
4. To source and share stories that make the complexities of humani ty visible so
that sympathetic imagination is nurtured.
These possibilities of social justice storytelling as pedagogy are a beginning that is open to
further exploration and intersection with other possibilities.
The process of reflection of my practic e has awakened deeper understandings of social
justice storytelling as pedagogy that enables young children‘s active citizenship practice.
Qualities of social justice storytelling that support or provoke young children‘s active citizenship
were identified. How adults and children can work together to enable young children‘s active
citizenship participation through a practice of social justice storytelling was investigated. An
intimate learning community was cultivated, where stories awakened awareness of the
complexities of humanity, which were discuss ed critically and responded to through aesthetic
experiences and social actions . Possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship did emerge.
The following two chapters (Chapter 6 & 7) explore the influenc e of my practice on these
possibilities.

158
CHAPTER 6: INFLUENCES ON POSSIBILITIES FOR YOUNG CHILDREN‘S
ACTIVE CITIZENSHIP

In this chapter I explore the influence of adult ideas on young children‘s active citizenship. Data
selected from Cluster -one is ana lysed that tracks social actions initiated by children that were
transformed and responded to by both the teacher and me as well other adults in the wider
community. These child -initiated social actions were selected because of the variation of
transformat ion and response they attracted from adults. The data events are described and
analysed chronologically.
The research subquestions frame the analysis:
2b) What proposals for social actions do young children offer?
2c) What citizenship practices are avai lable and possible for young children?
2d) Which metanarratives and ideologies influence young children‘s active citizenship
participation?
2e) Who might young children be as active citizens?
Metanarratives of children and citizenship are recognised as influencing possibilities for
children‘s social actions. Arendt‘s theory of action (1958/1998) is used to provide a means to
read and define young children‘s active citizenship .
This chapter is divided into sections according to how the children were vie wed as
citizens at different stages in the formation and implementation of social actions. The different
ways of viewing children as citizens were as social actors (6.1), as political actors (6.2), and as
future citizens (6.3). Within each of these section s other images of children as citizens were
recogni sed as interrupting and influencing what young children‘s active citizenship participation
could be . Upon a nalys ing the children‘s participation in Cluster -one of the study , I realised that
there is much c onfusion and ambiguity over the meaning of the terms children and participation .
In section 6.4, I discuss this confusion. The chapter concludes with a way of viewing young
children‘s active citizenship (6.5) based on Arendt‘s theory of action (1958/1998).
6.1 Children‘s C itizenship: Children as Social Actors
In this section I analyse evidence of one child (Denmark) as a social actor initiating and
independently completing a social action. Upon examining the data more closely, I identified
metanarratives that had interrupted my practice and intention of supporting children as social
actors. This section begins with an account of the conversation that provoked the initiated social
action (6.1.1). The social action suggested by Denmark is then analysed for p ossible influences
(6.1.2). Next, I explore how Denmark and I persisted with different proposals for children‘s
participation as active citizenship (6.1.3). In the closing section (6.1.4), I explain which social
action was enacted and suggest reasons why.

159 6.1.1 Sharing Information with Children Viewed as Social Actors
The context in which Denmark suggested a social action evolved from Max, who asked the
following question in the follow -up conversation after The Freedom Bird story workshop (week
1):
Who prot ects the animals from the hunters? (Line 26 W1 C C 18/07/2007)
In response to his question, I sourced further information on campaign activities of organisations
(WWF and Voiceless) that protect animals and are supportive of child participation. In the
following storytelling workshop (week 2) , I shared information on animal protection campaign
activities with a small group of children in one of the post -story activities. This discussion of
animal protection campaigns was one of three post -story activities that the children could choose
from. The other activities included designing a device that nurtured or protected an animal or
drawing about the story in their story journals.
Denmark, Max, Charlie, Molly, Finlay , and Patrick chose to attend the discussion
about these campaigns. After independently making the choice to attend, they sat down
promptly at the table and lent forward, eager to hear of the organi sations‘ activities. Molly
began the discussion by asking keenly :
Molly: Louise, what ARE they doing to the hunters to stop them?
(Line 351W2 23/07/2007)
I provided brief explanations of the Terai Arc Anti -poaching Project in Nepal, the Help End
Tiger Trade Project (both WWF projects), and the Animal Club activities of Voiceless (an
Australian animal pro tection organi sation). For the Help End Tiger Trade Project I stated:
Louise: … and these people from the World Wildlife Fund made a big list
of all the people in the world who are saying , ‗No! You should not
do that‘ and they showed it to all the leader s of different countries
and they thought ‗Mmm, many people want to stop the killing of
tigers‘, so they decided that they would make it against the law.
(Lines 452 -456W2 23/07/2007)
Throughout my explanations the children asked clarifying questions (e.g., ―which country?‖;
―is it true?‖). All of the children actively participated in the discussion of campaigns to
protect animals. Their many questions and comments suggested a keen interest in what other
people were doing to protect animals from the practice of hunting.
6.1.2 Denmark Suggests a Social Action
When the children view ed pictures from each of the campaign webpage fact sheets,
Denmark spontaneously proposed this plan for action.
Denmark: I‘m going to ask my Dad if he knows the people who are work ing
for that and doing that and I want to make a list of the hunters and

160
make a list of the people who are stopping the hunters. (W2
23/07/2007 Lines 483 -485)
These comments are suggestive of Denmark being a social actor, as he expressed interest in
takin g voluntary action on an issue of global concern. These are qualities of communitarian
(Delanty, 2002; Etzioni, 1993; Janoski, 1998) and global citizenship (J.Williams, 2002) . His
comment suggest s autonomy in accordance with the definition of Young (1995) regarding
the ability to make and act upon choices , thus providing evidence of Denmark as a social
actor through autonomous, self -motivated , and self-initiated action to address a global
concern.
Denmark‘s idea of making a list could have been shaped by my explanation of the Help
End Tiger Trade campaign , in which I stated that they ―made a big list‖ (Lines 452 -456 W2
23/07/2007) . My use of the word ‗list‘ was an attempt to translate the term ‗petition‘ into a more
recognisable and accessible word for child ren aged five and six years. To Lansdown (2005) ,
viewing children as developing can mask the extent to which they are capable. In this case I did
not see the children as capable of engaging with the word ‗petition‘, and so I positioned myself
as a translat or and altered the language. Denmark used the generic word ‗list‘, which had
contextual meaning to the group but not to outsiders who ha d not heard my translation and
interpretation. To Denmark‘s suggestion I replied:
Louise: Mmm —I‘m not sure if it is a problem here in Australia, but you
could ask your Dad , and when I come on Wednesday you tell me
what you found out. (Lines 486 -488 W2 23/07/2007)
This was an effort to support Denmark as a social actor capable of seeking knowledge
on whether hunting takes place in Australia and suggests evidence of my practice of social
justice storytelling provoking education for social change by motivating action to redress unjust
practices. I did not give him answers but rather supported his intention to seek information from
his father. By welcoming Denmark‘s initiated action to seek new knowledge, I endeavour ed to
support his agency through self -initiated knowledge seeking and social actions (i.e., list -making).
Denmark responded positively to my comment, taking on bo ard my suggestion of
reporting on his inquiry :
Denmark: I‘ll take the lists with me and every time I‘ll take the lists with me.
(Line 489 W2 23/07/2007)
This comment expressed commitment to the responsibility of the lists that he ha d voluntarily
underta ken. Viewed in terms of Arendt‘s ( 1958/1998) theory of action, both Denmark and I
were openly responsive to each other. Up t o this point , we did not block or control the
responses or actions of each other: agency was not denied.

161 6.1.3 Children as Social Actors Versus Children as Dependent on Adults
The aim of the discussion with this small group of children on animal protection campaigns
was for the children to choose on e of the campaign strategies in which to participate. I had
chosen campaigns with established strategies that supported child participation. For this
reason, the goal was to obtain a decision on supporting a campaign even though Denmark
had suggested his own idea for a social action.
The following data excerpt from this discussion ma kes visible the ways in which I
struggled to manage two agendas: responding to the group of young children, and obtaining
a decision on citizenship participation with an established campaign strategy.
Louise: So there are thr ee different things you can do. Moll y, you might
want to have a think about what you as a class want to do. You
could set up here, at school, an animal club, where you do different
activities to
protect animals. Do you think there might be other people in the
school who might be intere sted in protecting animals?
Molly: Um can I invite my brother? (Lines 493 -499 W2 23/07/2007)
Denmark: I might ring some of my friends. This afternoon I might ring some
of my friends and see if they can help me.
Louise: Oh ok, can I just ask you one mo re thing? Would you like to help
any of these projects?
Molly: I would.
Denmark: I‘m going to call some people to help me do some lists .
Louise: You want to do the lists. I think Finlay and Carl /
Patrick: (To Louise ) I‘m going to make a list for you.
Louise: Oh you like the idea of lists, because we could get a passport with
the World Wildlife Fund , and whenever they need help from us they
will ask us to write letters and get names of lots of people to make
lists, saying stop hurting the animals. Is that what you think? Is that
what you are interested in when you are talking about lists?
Denmark: You can‘t ring the hunters?
Louise: No. (Lines 515 -529 W2 23/07/2007)
In this excerpt I was endeavouring to facilitate a group decision on which establ ished
campaign activit y the group wanted to contribute . Although I was attempting to support the
children‘s agency through consultation, greater support for their agency would have
occurred had I worked with their ideas. Yet I was unwilling to surrender my pre-planned
agenda of selecting an animal protection campaign for class participation. This contradicted
my value of responsiveness.

162
In the position of facilitator I maintain ed group cohesion (e.g. , ―I think Finlay and
Carl‖), listen ed and paraphras ed (e.g., ―You want to do the lists‖), and s ought opinions (e.g. ,
―Do you think …‖; ―Is that what you think?‖). In the position of authority on campaigns to
protect animals, I shared knowledge (e.g. , ―an animal club, where you do different activities
to protect animals ‖). Through a position of knowing came power to take control as I
manipulated the WWF Passport strategy to sound like Denmark and Patrick‘s plan to make
lists (e.g. , ―we could get a passport … to make lists‖) and refuted Denmark‘s query of the
possibility of telephoning the hunters. I acknowledged the children‘s agency through my
endeavours to seek their opinions and engage the m in decision -making. Yet in my efforts to
obtain a decision, I also positioned the child ren as immanent, disregarding their ideas for my
―knowledgeable‖ adult ideas. The only opportunity for children‘s agency was deciding
which campaign strategy to support. A metanarrative of children as immanent , and the
teacher as knowing and controlling influenced my practice to contradict my value s of agency
and responsiveness . In this case the children‘s ideas for social actions were excluded , as the
metanarrative of teachers enter ing the classroom equipped with knowledge to impart on
students dominated. Without analysis, disregarding chil dren‘s suggestions and negating their
position as valuable contributors would have passed unnoticed.
My pedagogical and research agenda of following a predetermined plan collided
with my attempts to be responsive and supportive of children‘s agency. To follow leads from
child ren was uncertain territory. Pre -planned activities offered predictability. This was an
example of a moment in my practice in which differing views of children determined
pedagogical practices that influenced possibilities for young ch ildren‘s active citizenship.
At this point in the conversation, the teacher approached our gathering to hear the
outcomes of the discussion.
Teacher: (Comes over to table ) What are they thinking of doing?
Louise: They are very interested in the idea of lists and names.
Teacher: Lists? ( with a puzzled look )
Louise: I think they like the idea of a petition.
Denmark: I‘m going to be doing the list … (Lines 530 -536 W2 23/07/2007)
(The children say many things about what they are going to do,
talking over the top of each other )
Louise: But I think that maybe the idea of the passport and then they can tell
us when they need help.
Teacher: That‘s a good idea, sounds good. (Lines 542 -544W2 23/07/2007)
Louise: We‘d better go back to the whole circle ev eryone. Well done friends.
Good job.

163 Molly: I might ring some of my friends. This afternoon I might talk to my
friends.
Denmark: I‘m going to get some people to help me do the lists. I‘m going to
get lists for you. I‘m going to do the lists. (Lines 548 -553 W2
23/07/2007)
In this excerpt , the teacher directed her question about what the children were thinking of
doing to me, privileging my position as storytelling teacher/researcher over the children. I
relayed the children‘s plan to ―do lists ‖. I offer ed the teacher the more accurate term
―petition‖, as within metanarratives of children as immanent or developing, the identity of
adult is seen as knowing.
None of the children indicated a preference for any of the projects, yet I claimed a
decision was made by stating , ―I think they like the idea of a petition … But I think that
maybe the idea of the passport and then they can tell us when they need help.‖ Even though I
presented the decision cautiously by prefacing it with ―I think‖, I spoke for the children
(―they like‖) and selected a project that would largely be controlled externally (―they can tell
us when they need help‖). I took the opportunity for decision -making away from the
children by selecting an external project, the structure of which was alrea dy fixed. By doing
this, I positioned the children as incapable of making decisions, suggesting , or steering the
direction of social actions. By selecting a fixed pre -determined project, I position ed the
participants as passive in citizenship practice. My actions unwittingly denied, muted , and
limited children‘s agency to make suggestions or decisions on the possibilities and direction
of social actions. My practice was a living contradiction with my value of children‘s agency .
I struggled to juggle multipl e agendas , and metanarratives of children as immanent and
developing permeated my comments.
I made a decision on the children‘s behalf. Although I endeavoured to consult with the
group of children, in the absence of an answer from the m I matched my interp retation of their
responses with what I saw as the most closely aligned campaign strategy. Like the UNCRC
principle, ―in the child‘s best interests ‖, I positioned myself as an adult and more informed about
assessing their interests. Yet as Coady (1996) sug gested, implementation of the UNCRC
principle can deny the children‘s rights and ability to determine their own interests. By making a
decision on the children‘s behalf, their interests were muted.
Even though I made a decision on the children‘s behalf, Molly and Denmark did not
let go of their self -initiated plans for social actions , as noted in the last section of the
conversation (Lines 548 -553). As the group moved to join a whole -class gathering, Molly
(Lines 550 -551) and Denmark (Lines 552 -553) still professed plans to enact their
suggestions for social actions. Metanarratives of children as immanent and developing, with
adults as knowing, competent, and supreme did not appear to encroach upon the self-

164
motivation and commitment of Molly and Denmark to follow through with their plans for
social actions. This was exciting because at the time I had not actively supported and
extended their ideas. The closing comments of Molly and Denmark expressed autonomy
because of their declarations to act upon their choices (Young, 1995). Their comments did
not fit with metanarratives of children as innocent, immanent , and developing, as within
these discourses children do not possess the capacity for autonomy (Stasiulis, 2002). Molly
and Denmark‘s comments presented a possibility for young children‘s active citizenship as
young children initiating autonomous social actions.
6.1.4 Child Initiated Versus Adult Initiated Social Action
Following the above conversation, the group joined the whole class in a circle on the ca rpet
to close the workshop. I explained the idea of the WWF Passport to the whole class . The
teacher asked:
Teacher: And is it only for children or can I join as well?
Denmark: You can join too!
…
Denmark: Maybe we could get some for them.
Teacher: For who?
Denmark: For the other class —the other Prep ( pointing at next door class ).
(Lines 670 -681 W2 23/07/2007 )
Even though I made Denmark‘s idea fit with an adult -directed, externally controlled strategy
(WWF Passport), Denmark was eager to include his t eacher and the neighbouring class. He
seemed willing to participate in the strategy and actively support group participation. Yet in
the small group discussion none of his responses affirmed the passport strategy. Why did he
support the passport strategy i n this context? Was it that he was with the whole class and th at
the passport strategy was declared as the campaign in which the class would participate ?
The above comments by Denmark can be read as responsive actions (Arendt,
1958/ 1998) , by welcoming the inclusion of others. He did not seem to block or control the
responses of others to his actions, nor did he block suggestions of actions by others (e.g., my
suggestion of registering for the WWF Passport). Viewed this way, the actions initiated by
Denmark supported his agency and that of others. If he had attempted to control how others
responded to his initiatives, he could have deprived others of the opportunity to begin, to act;
and agency could have been denied for both Denmark and others. Data explore d in this
section provide evidence of Denmark being agentic in Arendtian terms, that is, an initiator of
social actions that started something new and responsive to the initiatives of others.
Just as Denmark expressed support for the passport strategy, I e xpressed interest in
supporting Denmark‘s enthusiasm for his list. We both seemed to be open to further
deliberation over the form of social action for animal protection. As I was leaving the class

165 that day, I confirmed with Denmark his agreement to bring his list to class when I next
visited. Denmark said that he would do the list that night, although he was concerned that he
would keep the rest of his family awake with the light on as it would probably take him all
night. A few days later , Denmark proudly brought his list (recorded in an exercise book) to
school. I t included my name, the teacher‘s name and the names of all his classmates as well
as names of other friends from outside the school .
The WWF Passport idea did not progress any further than the teacher and me both
registering for it . At the time I thought the idea of subscribing and contributing to the WWF
Passport strategy was a conscious effort to support children‘s agency through participation
in the wider community. However, my focus on this strategy hindered my awareness of and
attention to how Denmark chose to be agentic himself. Gallacher and Gallagher (2008)
recognised that sociological research methods that proclaim to acknowledge children‘s
agency can be blind to ways children choose to be agentic . In this example, t he children did
not have a connection with the concept. In terms of citizenship, children require a voice in
the citizenship experience in order to build connection with its purpose and meaning (Hart,
1997; Kulnych, 2001). The children did not connect with the WWF Passport idea, probably
because they had limited understanding of how the passport strategy worked and it was not
their idea. They had no energy invested in it and therefore no emoti onal connection. Yet
Denmark‘s idea of making lists came to fruition. Denmark had connected with the idea: he
suggested it and he steered it. The fact that he created a list, and the WWF Passport strategy
was not adopted, indicates that ownership of the idea may have motivated Denmark‘s
participation . This suggests that opportunities for children to initiate actions are required to
cultivate motivation for active citizenship participation. The outcome of this experience is
indicative of why Cockburn (1998) and Roche (1999) recommend ed that a dults should listen
seriously to what is important to children and what they suggest a s actions to address
injustices, and then devis e ways with the children to support their ideas. The WWF Passport
did not offer the flexibility to address what was importa nt to the children, to incorporate
their suggestions of actions, or to devise ways to bring their ideas into action.
This section has explored Denmark initiating and enacting a social action to redress
the injustice of hunting. This is evidence of the infl uence of my practice of social justice
storytelling in the learning of a young child as an active citizen. Denmark responded to what
I had shared through stories and the provision of information on animal protection
campaigns. He suggested a social action and expressed his commitment to it by enacting it
despite lack of initial encouragement. His actions are evidence that young children‘s active
citizenship can be provoked through a practice of social justice storytelling. However, my
efforts to support act ive citizenship were not always aligned with my pedagogical values of
agency and responsiveness. Metanarratives of children as immanent and developing

166
interrupted and shaped the possibilities that I saw for children‘s participation. Determining
the social action in which the class would participate was adult -initiated and directed.
However, the stories and information on animal protection campaigns that I shared acted as
a catalyst for Denmark‘s idea of creating a list of people who are against hunting. At the
time I recognised the list of names Denmark gathered as an act of citizenship that warranted
further attention and purpose in the public realm. In the next section I explain how the
teacher and I steered the list made by Denmark towards local purpose a nd action in the
public realm.
6.2 Children‘s Citizenship: Children as Political Actors
Children can be political actors (Arendt, 1958/1998), capable of taking action in the polis , or
public sphere. They also possess political identities (Kulnych, 2001). To A rendt, if someone
starts something new in the polis or public sphere she is making a mark as a political citizen by
expressing opinions and being motivated to initiate actions. To Kulnych, children are political
actors if they authorise children‘s citizens hip and are incorporated into political culture. In this
section , I discuss endeavours to support young children‘s active citizenship by following the
suggestions of Hart (1997) that children‘s participation in their local environment enables greater
scope for direct civic engagement of children. Lansdown (2005) also argued that children‘s
citizenship participation in a local context offers potential for meaningful action that can make a
difference, as children have opportunities to actually see the impact of their actions . Based on
these ideas, the teacher and I endeavoured to apply the list compiled by Denmark to a real issue
within the local geographical area to cultivate possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship
in the public realm. To enable the recognition of the list beyond the classroom as an act of active
citizenship, I identified a local bird species that was critically endangered: the Coxens‘ fig -parrot.
The anti -poaching campaigns that provoked the development of the list focused on en dangered
animals of Africa and Asia. These contexts were far removed from the children‘s daily lives. My
intention was to locali se their practice of citizenship so that they may have greater opportunity to
be directly involved and see changes from their so cial actions. The need to source possibilities
for children‘s participation in the local environment guided the crafting of The Lonely Coxen’s
Fig-parrot , the story that I told in workshop two (previously discussed in section 5.1). The
teacher and I had ho ped that through engagement with a story about a local issue, young
children‘s active citizenship would be provoked.
The cultivation of children‘s interest in the plight of the Coxen‘s fig -parrot is told in
section 6.2.1. This is followed by explanations o f how the teacher and I initiated action for
children‘s citizenship participation in the political realm (6.2.2). Analysis of children as political
actors is then discussed through their participation in this adult -initiated action (6.2.3).

167 6.2.1 Adult -initiated Local interest: The Lonely Coxen’s Fig -parrot Story
To cultivate children‘s interest in a local issue related to the harming of birds, I wrote the story
The Lonely Coxen’s Fig-parrot (see Appendix F). The story painted a picture of life for the
Coxen‘s fig -parrot in the pre -colonis ed forests of South East Queensland. It then followed
one bird‘s experience of deforestation from coloni sation to present day, as if the bird had
lived for many generations. Following the story, the children participated i n a re -enactment
of the deforestation of native fig trees and the consequential decline in the population of
Coxen‘s fig -parrots . Through the story and the re -enactment, the children linguistically,
visually , and kinaesthetically experienced the impact of deforestation on Coxen‘s fig –
parrots. The final scene of one tree and two birds seemed to leave a strong impression, as
expressed by Juliet in her comment:
Juliet: When the people were chopping down the trees I felt like the parrot was dying.
(Line 913 -914 W3 30/07/2007)
In the whole group discussion after the story Juliet and Max contributed these comments.
Juliet: They weren‘t thinking about the animals. Like if they were chopping down
the trees with a bird in it —they‘ve got to be careful of other anima ls. (Lines
176-177 W3 30/07/2007)
Max: What happens to the animals? If they be friends —be kind to the lorikeet
[Coxen‘s fig -parrot] and everything else. So why are they killing them? …
Shouldn‘t have only one more left. What happens to stop killing? (Lines
199-202 W3 30/07/2007)
These comments suggest ed emotive, sensuous , and reflective responses to the story. As
identified in section 5.4, stories provoked sympathetic responses when they told of suffering ,
evoked imagery and emotive connection , and engaged children . These factors were present
in The Lonely Coxen’s F ig-parrot story , which may have contributed to the sympathetic
responses above. Comments by the children in dicat ed passion for the plight of the Coxen‘s
fig-parrot and a desire to stop those who were harming them.
The post -story activities offered in The Lonely Coxen’s Fig-parrot storytelling
workshop included drawing in their story journals, making a Coxen‘s fig -parrot replica, and
making signs to support the recovery of the Coxen‘s fig -parrot po pulation. At the sign –
making activity, children suggested the following messages , which I wrote and the children
copied onto cardboard signs:
Plant more fig seeds (Mat)
Don‘t cut the trees down (Peter)
Don‘t steal the Coxen‘s fig-parrot (Nick)
It‘s very s ad that lots of the Coxen‘s fig-parrots are dying (Scott)
We need to plant more fig trees (Declan)

168
Don‘t kill the Coxen‘s fig -parrot (Finlay)
Please plant more fig seeds (Juliet).
When Declan was writing his sign, he thought about fig seeds and trees and a sked:
Declan: You can buy them from shops can‘t you? (Line 750 W3 30/07/2007)
Declan and I then puzzled over the kind of shop that would sell the species of native fig trees
that Coxen‘s fig -parrot s eat. Our conversation continued with plans.
Louise: Maybe I should see if we could get some fig trees … mmm I could
bring them here and you could give them out to people. (Line 760 -762
W3 30/07/2007)
Declan: We could plant then in the school and the fig -parrots could come
around, so we could see a real o ne. (Line 764 -765 W3 30/07/2007)
Declan‘s last comment indicated delight at the possibility of actually seeing one of these
elusive birds.
From the idea proposed by Declan , the teacher started to consider and consult with the
principal about planting a fi g tree at the school. Over the next week I made contact with
numerous organi sations in search of native fig seedlings, which included the Threatened Bird
Network, the Blackall Ranges Landcare Group (who work in a known Coxen‘s fig -parrot
habitat), and Quee nsland Parks and Wildlife Services Coxen‘s Fig-parrot Recovery Team.
Eventually, it was through a resident of the Blackall Ranges who had devoted much of her life to
recovery work for the Coxen‘s fig -parrot that brought success. I learnt that the Coxen‘s f ig-parrot
eats only a few native fig species, and their seeds could only be sourced from these trees, not
from nurseries. This resident also advised against planting a fig tree in the school grounds for two
reasons: the hazard of their size; and that to ha ve any chance of supporting recovery of the
Coxen‘s fig -parrot population, the fig trees needed to be planted in known habitat areas , such as
the Blackall Ranges. The resident kindly volunteered to travel from the Blackall Ranges to
Brisbane to bring seedl ings for the children to nurture until they were sufficiently mature to be
planted in the Blackall Ranges. Unfortunately, illness preven ted her from visiting the class. We
then waited for a suitable time for the designated Coxen‘s fig -parrot expert from th e Queensland
Parks and Wildlife Services to visit after he had collected fig seedlings from the Blackall Ranges.
When a Queensland Parks and Wildlife Services Officer visited six weeks later he
also brought a preserved Coxen‘s fig -parrot from the Queensla nd Museum collection and a
recording of its song . In this way , Declan and the class had an as -close -as-possible
experience of a real Coxen‘s fig -parrot. This visit not only enabled the children to contribute
to the recovery of a Coxen‘s fig -parrot habitat but also led to the children becoming more
informed about it and be coming advocates for its recovery.
Care of the seedlings became a challenge, as at the time the locality was
experiencing a drought and watering was not permitted during school hours. At a loss for

169 solutions, the teacher took the seedlings home to care for them . This then meant that the
children only briefly contributed to nurturing the seedlings and limitations were placed on
their citizenship participation due to circumstances beyond our control. Some months later
the seedlings went back to their native area to grow and bud fruit for Coxen‘s fig -parrots to
eat.
Declan‘s suggestion of planting fig trees for Coxen‘s fig -parrots led to the children,
teacher, and me participating in encounter s with community members who broadened our
understandings of the complexities and delicate nature of endangered species recovery work.
According to Arendt‘s (1958/1998) the theory of action, Declan‘s initiative brought action
into the public sphere. The nu rturing of fig tree seedlings can also be seen as child -authored
citizenship in the wider political culture as Kulnych (2001) suggested. It was child authored
because the idea to plant fig trees was contributed by Declan. The experience brought the
class i nto contact with the wider political culture through contact with other people and
organisations involved in strategies to aid recovery of the Coxen‘s fig -parrot population. On
the basis of this evidence, Declan can be understood to be a political actor.
The children buil t a connection with the Coxen‘s fig -parrot and its plig ht. In week 12,
when I asked each child which story they learn ed the most from, the most common answer was
The Lonely Coxen’s Fig-parrot (see Table 6.1). Yet the Coxen‘s fig -parrot wa s not a local issue
that directly affect ed their lives. The ir interest in the endangerment of this bird did not emerge
from their daily life experiences. I provoked the children‘s connection with the Coxen‘s fig –
parrot through my storytelling of The Lonely Coxen’s Fig-parrot as an idea to steer Denmark‘s
list towards a local purpose. The children‘s interest in the plight of the bird was ignited by
storytelling. The decision to introduce the plight of the Coxen‘s fig -parrot was influenced by my
value of inte rconnectivity in that I selected an endangered local bird to build connections with
The Freedom Bird story, and the local environment. In this way, the children‘s engagement with
recovery strategies for the Coxen‘s fig -parrot was adult initiated. I intenti onally crafted the story
of The Lonely Coxen’s Fig-parrot to provide a context for social actions that could build upon
Denmark‘s list. This was followed through in workshop four.
Table 6.1. List of stories that the children identified as having learned t he most.
Story Number of child nominations
The Freedom Bird 3
The Lonely Coxen’s Fig -parrot 7
Iqbal’s Story 2
Craig’s Story 1
The Wise Old Woman and the Rich Factory
Owner 1
The GREED Machine 1
Two Rocks 4

170
6.2.2 Adult -initiated Action for Childre n’s Citizenship in the Political Realm
With the children interested in the plight of the Coxen‘s fig -parrot, the teacher and I planned
for action to support the recovery of the Coxen‘s fig -parrot population that involved
citizenship participation in the po litical realm. When planning the post -story activities for
the Two Brothers storytelling workshop (W4 6/08/2007) that followed The Lonely Coxen’s
Fig-parrot storytelling workshop , I proposed in an email to the teacher:
We could create our own [petition] r e: Coxen‘s fig -parrot or we could add to
existing petition re: population growth in SE Qld, as there are plans to clear 65000
hectares over the next few years for housing —chn would connect with this after last
week & clearing of trees [reference to The Lon ely Coxen’s Fig -parrot story]. Let me
know. Perhaps chn can come up with their own words & if parents approve we
could send it in to Govt. (Email sent 3/08/07)
The teacher replied to these suggestions with:
I like the idea of doing our own petition for th e Coxen‘s fig -parrot (as Denmark has
started). (Email received 5/08/07)
I agreed with the teacher‘s choice and the rationale for her selection, so I replied with:
I am pleased that you want to go with petition re: the CFP —more meaningful &
valuable to fol low on children‘s ideas. It would be great if they come up with their
own wording for the petition statement. (Email sent 5/08/07)
Close examination of this email interchange saw multiple meanings applied to
citizenship participation for children. The mean ing of the petition and suitable civic
participation for children was influenced by how the teacher and I viewed children and
citizenship participation. My suggestion of ―perhaps chn could come up with their own
words‖ was suggestive of supporting children ‘s agency by valuing their right to express their
own opinion on social matters, as advocated by many authors on children‘s citizenship (e.g.,
Hart, 1997; Kulnych, 2001; Lansdown, 2005; Lister, 2007, 2008; Prout, 2002; Roche, 1999) .
It was also indicative of viewing children as tribal by celebrating children‘s practices (e.g.,
wording) for their difference (James et al., 1998). However, acknowledgement of young
children‘s dependen ce on adults and consequential need to seek parental permission to
participate in the community beyond the school interrupt ed my comment with ―if parents
approve‖. Citizenship participation was also defined as possessing collective ownership in
references to the petition by both the teacher and me: ―our own petition‖ and ―we could
create our own‖. Socio -cultural theory (Vygotsky, 1978) and associated pedagogical
practices support group projects on real issues and position children as social actors in the
learning community. In terms of citizenship, collective ownership is also indica tive of
communitarian citizenship. Civic participation was planned to be local by making
connections to The Lonely Coxen’s Fig -parrot story, which in turn would make it ―more

171 meaningful‖. A view of children as developing (James et al) informed the idea of young
children‘s active citizenship participation as adult -initiated and directed (e.g., adding to
existing petition on forest clearing in South East Queensland). However, children were also
positioned as capable of having ideas and interests thus enabling them to express opinions
and make decisions (e.g., building on Denmark‘s list to form a petition seeking support for
the recovery of the Coxen‘s fig -parrot population). These different ways of viewing children
shaped how the teacher and I attached meaning to children‘s citizenship participation.
The teacher appreciated the idea of forming a petition to seek support for the
recovery of the Coxen‘s fig-parrot population. She viewed it as a way to build on the list
compiled by Denmark, of those who are again st hunting (e.g., ―as Denmark has started‖). By
building on this list and the children‘s concern for the plight of the Coxen‘s fig-parrot, the
teacher and I thought we were tak ing children‘s participation seriously and supporting
possibilities for their pa rticipation (Prout, 2002). We saw Denmark‘s action of collating the
list as a valid act of citizenship participation and as something to be taken seriously and
supported. We saw the idea of the petition as enabling an interdependent approach to
children‘s citizenship (Cockburn, 1998; Hart, 1997) by proposing the Coxen‘s fig -parrot as a
collaborative project with the children (e.g., ―our own petition‖; ―f ollow on children‘s ideas‖
and ―their own wording for the petition statement‖).
The teacher and I also c onsidered our proposal of forming a petition with the
children as an opportunity to support children‘s political identities, as Kulnych (2001)
suggested through children -authored citizenship participation in the wider political culture.
The petition was se en as child authored in that it built on Denmark‘s idea and was to be
worded by the children. The process of petition submission also engaged children with the
larger political culture, as they came to know the petition process and gain some
understanding of government. In addition, the welcoming of the children‘s wording of the
petition can be understood , as challenging the dichotomous perception of ―order‖ in the
adult world and the ―disorder‖ of the child‘s world (Kulnych , p. 232). To Kulnych, by
welcomi ng children‘s communication, a common argument for exclusion of children from
public debates of social problems is challenged, that is, a view of children‘s communication
as disordered in relation to that of adults. The teacher and I did not see the childr en‘s
communication as disordered, but we were interested in supporting children‘s participation
in the political realm and challeng ing arguments that excluded their participation.
The proposal of the petition could also be understood as manipulation of De nmark‘s
list to follow adult citizenship practice, as petition writing is a conventional democratic method
of seeking change from governments. To be recognised as citizenship, Denmark‘s idea had to
follow conventional adult citizenship practice. By imposin g adult definitions of citizenship
participation, our actions could be viewed as not valuing Denmark‘s list as a practice of

172
citizenship in its own right, as we sought to transform it into an adult act of citizenship. The
adult -initiated idea of a petition followed a fine line between what might be viewed as honouring
the children‘s political identities and supporting their engagement with the wider political
culture; and what might be viewed as manipulating their suggestions to conform to adult values
and understandings of citizenship and children. Multiple ways of viewing children and varying
definitions of citizenship practice collided in our endeavours to support children‘s participation.
So far this account of the formation of a petition to support the recovery of the
Coxen‘s fig -parrot population presents a view of children‘s citizenship participation as an
adult -initiated local interest and associated action. The teacher and I initiated both the
connection with the issue of the endangerment of the Coxe n‘s fig -parrot and the social
action of forming a petition. Although the teacher and I were responsive to supporting the
agency of each other by welcoming ideas and thoughts from each other, we planned the
petition without input from the children. Accordin g to Arendt‘s (1958/1998) theory of
action , we had denied the children‘s agency. The next section examines how Denmark
responded to the idea of a petition seeking support for the recovery of the Coxen‘s fig –
parrot .
6.2.3 Children’s Participation in the Pub lic Realm: Petition Formation
The teacher introduced the idea of creating a petition to the class as one of the post -story
activities of storytelling workshop four. The following transcript shows how this occurred.
Teacher: And I‘m going to be working ov er at this table and we are going to
be adding to Denmark‘s list. Denmark you started a list with your
Mum and Dad, a list with names on it and that list was people who
were going to
Denmark: Help
Teacher: Help what?
Denmark: Help care for the animals.
Teacher: Yes and we are going to do a petition or a list, going with what
Denmark has already started.
Denmark: The whole class is already on it, even you two ( points at teacher
and me ).
Teacher: And we can add other people onto it. We might even go for a walk
around the school to add some more names to it and we are going to
talk about how we are going to put it all together. Okay? And I will
be doing that over here at this table.
Denmark: Or we can talk about walking around the school.
Teacher: Do you th ink, Louise, I should do one up on the computer or just a
handwritten one?

173 Louise: I think a handwritten one would be fine.
Denmark: ‘Cos I have already handwritten it.
Louise: ‘Cos it would be nice for the children to have their own handwriting
on it wit h their names and their signature next to it.
Denmark: People can copy mine.
Teacher: We‘ll talk about it. (Lines 467 -498 W4 6/08/2007)
In the beginning of the transcript the teacher positioned Denmark as the initiator of the list.
He was acknowledged as a social actor who initiated a project that was worthy of
continuing. Previous citizenship participation by Denmark was validated. He responded by
assuming a position of expert or experienced petition/list maker (e.g. , ―People can copy
mine‖). However, as the conversation continued, Denmark, the teacher , and I had different
visions and therefore meanings as to what building on the list that Denmark had complied to
form a petition would require. Denmark asserted his position as autonomous social actor
throu gh his comments of ― The whole class is already on it, even you two‖ and ― ‘Cos I have
already handwritten it.‖ From the position of autonomous social actor who had already
produced a list, Denmark made it known that he had already addressed our suggestions. He
declar ed the extension of the list as involv ing walking around the school to collect more
signatures and people copying his list.
These comments by Denmark brought to the fore that the teacher and I had made
decisions regarding the class‘s citizenship participation without their input. First, we had decided
to transform Denmark‘s list into an adult practice of citizenship without prior consent before
presenting it to the whole class. The list of people who could help care for animals was social
action initiated by Denmark, yet we did not respect his ownership and authority on the idea by
consulting him. Second, I decided on the format of the petition (― ‘Cos it would be nice for the
children to have their own handwriting on it with their names and their signature next to it‖). My
intention was to support children‘s voice s, to acknowledge that they have signatures and enable
an opportunity for the children to have their signatures accepted in the wider community as a
mark of their identity. I saw children‘ s signatures on the petition as a claim for political rights for
children and validation of their position in society. However, my use of the word ―nice‖ suggest s
traces of a view of children as innocent, where the naivety of children‘s handwriting is
appreciated. As Stonehouse (1994) and Hard (2005) acknowledged, the niceness factor has had a
strong influence in early childhood education. Awareness of these factors points to the delicate
nature of supporting young children‘s citizenship participation. As n oted before, it was a fine line
between honouring the children‘s rights and supporting their engagement with the wider political
culture , and what might be viewed as manipulating their suggestions to conform to adult values
and understandings of citizenshi p and children. As McNaughton and Smith (2008) advocated

174
―adults need to reflect critically on if, why, how, when and where they engage children in
consultations‖ (p. 33) in order to enhance children‘s participatory rights.
In closing, the teacher identifi ed that the meaning of the petition formation required
further clarification with Denmark , ―We‘ll talk about it.‖ The struggle for meaning could be
resolved through further dialogue, but as a teacher managing a group of children with in a
school where timet abling restricts and constrains activity (Foucault, 1977a), the timing of
the dialogue was postponed until later. Based on Arendt‘s (1958/1998) theory of action, the
comment by the teacher could be read as blocking Denmark‘s agency. Her comment stopped
the conversation and the flow of initiating, responding to, and building on ideas.
Close examination of the responses by Denmark to the idea of creating a petition
identified conflict over the meaning of children‘s participation in the formation of the
petition. Both the teacher and I had intended to further validate the list by scribing a letter
with specific requests to a Member of Parliament and gathering signatures of support for the
requests . Yet Denmark seemed to question why, declaring that he had alre ady created a list
that included all of our names. Based on what the teacher and I said, Denmark seemed to
think that we viewed the list as incomplete or ‗not quite good enough‘ . This was not our
intention. Our efforts to facilitate an interdependent pract ice of children‘s active citizenship
had evolved from child -initiated to adult -managed practice. The idea had been taken out of
Denmark‘s hands and managed by the teacher and me. We managed the situation according
to the Evolving Capacities model of childr en‘s citizenship (Lansdown, 2005), as we
supported their participation to the level we determined their capacities to be. Yet by doing
this, their right to participate in decision -making was not entirely honoured.
Five self -nominated children (Denmark, Ch arlie, Liam, David, and Patrick) worked
with the teacher to develop a petition format and letter in one of the post -story activities of the
fourth storytelling workshop of the study. T he teacher typed the letter (see Figure 6.1) and
formatted a petition on the computer , guided by the children‘s suggestions on the content of both
the letter and petition. The teacher constructed sentences based on the children‘s suggestions.
Our intent to have the children word the petition required negotiation to manag e the children‘s
emerging language and literacy skills. The petition pages were headed with this text:
Please sign this petition to help save the Coxen‘s fig -parrot. We are writing a letter
to the Minister for Environment and Multiculturalism, Ms Lindy Nelson -Carr, to let
her know we are really worried about the Coxen‘s fig -parrot, which is an
endangered Australian Species.
The children wrote their names alongside their typed names . The children set a goal of 110
signatures, as they planned to walk around the sc hool asking students in other classes to
support the recovery of the Coxen‘s fig -parrot population by signing the petition. However,
this was not possible , as the principal stipulated that the study could only involve the selected

175 participatory class so as not to position this class as doing something different from other classes.
His decision limited the possibilities for children‘s active citizenship within the school
community . The teacher and the children then sought others (such as parents and teaching staff)
who could sign the petition given the se parameters. During the time it took to gather signatures
and wait for a reply from the Minister , many children frequently asked the teacher about the
progress of the petition.

Figure 6.1. Scan of letter sent to the Minister for Environment and Multiculturalism.

176
In the above account of the formation of the petition, the teacher acknowledged
Denmark as the initiator in recognition of his prior act of producing a list of peop le who
wanted to help animals by stopping hunting. According to Arendt‘s (1958/1998) theory of
action, Denmark initiated action that connected with others, which instigated responsive
actions, that is, the petition. The responses by the teacher and me to D enmark‘s initiated
social action brought his idea into the public sphere through a petition to parliament. He was
recognised as agentic. If we had not responded to the list, it would have remained simply
words in an exercise book. Responding to and extendi ng Denmark‘s initiative of creating the
list can be understood as enabling the continued life of his initiated action. If Denmark had
controlled our (or others‘) responses to his initiative or if the teacher and I had deprived
Denmark or any of the childre n an opportunity to begin, it would not have come into the
world, that is, the polis or the public sphere. According to Arendt, initiated actions need to
be responded to in order to be political. The combination of Denmark‘s initiative and the
responses by the adults in the classroom enabled Denmark and his peers to engage in the
public sphere. This view defines Denmark‘s experience of agency as political.
Denmark was not the only child who initiated social actions that were enacted as a
whole -class proje ct. A number of social actions were enacted across the study, as noted in
Figures 5.2 and 5.3. Declan initiated the whole -class project of nurturing native fig tree
seedlings (6.2.1). The accounts of the actions initiated by Denmark and Declan and the
efforts by the teacher and me to support and extend these initiatives is evidence of children
as political actors who initiat ed social actions in the public sphere. It also shows how social
justice storytelling influenced learning young children as active citi zens. Like the view of
children as social actors, a view of children as political actors acknowledges children‘s
initiated social actions but differs by orchestrating the interplay of these actions in the public
realm. However, analysis led to identificati on of a fine line between supporting children‘s
engagement with the wider political culture and what might be viewed as manipulating their
suggestions to conform to adult values and understandings of citizenship and children. For
adults to support young ch ildren as political actors require s listening seriously to children to
recogni se moments of possibility for active communitarian citizenship that could enable
children‘s participation in the public sphere. Reflection on the above experience of forming
and submitting a petition also led to recogni tion that includ ing children as agents throughout
the entire process sustains their political identities.
6.3 Children‘s Citizenship: Children as Future Citizens
This study actively acknowledged children as citiz ens of today, challenging ideas that
position children only as future citizens. A common approach to democratic education is
preparing students for future citizenship participation in democratic life (Biesta, 2007).
Metanarratives of children as innocent a nd developing position them as citizens of the future

177 in both the wider community and schools. Although engagement of the children with the
political realm through petition submission was based on a view of children as citizens of
today, metanarratives tha t view children as future citizens and citizenship as obedience to
the state blocked opportunities for their participation to create change. The following
provides an account and possible influences on the reply of the minister to the petition
(6.3.1) and analysis of why the petition was not tabled in parliament (6.3.2).
6.3.1 Minister’s Reply to the Petition
Not long after the visit to the class by the officer from the Queensland Parks and Wildlife
Services , the children received a letter of reply from the Minister ( Figure 6.2 )
acknowledg ing the children‘s concern for the plight of the Coxen‘s fig -parrot. The letter
outlined what the department had already implemented as recovery strategies for the
Coxen‘s fig -parrot population. The Minister claimed tha t, ―The recent work my department
has done covers many of the things you mentioned in your letter‖. The children were seen as
agentic in the request for advocacy : ―Please keep telling people about this bird.‖ The letter
provided the children with further i nformation about the Coxen‘s fig -parrot recovery
program and supported their interest as concerned citizens.
The petition was not however , acknowledged. The transformation of the list
compiled by Denmark into a petition had stopped its journey to create ch ange when it
reached the Minister‘s office, as it was not recogni sed as a petition . There was no mention of
a petition in the letter of reply , nor was it tabled in parliament. The explanation for the
petition not being tabled, offered on inquiry, was that it did not precisely follow the
prescribed wording and format for petitions. This information had not been volunteered but
was provided when I inquired . Disregard for the petition and provision of information to
learn about petition procedures could be int erpreted as a disregard for a children‘s version of
a petition and children‘s capacity to learn petition procedures. According to Lister (2007),
children are typically seen as ―citizens in waiting‖ or ―learner citizens‖. Yet the opportunity
for children to learn as citizens was neglected in this case. Petition legislation that dictates
precise wording does not allow for children‘s ways of communication. Because Kulnych
(2001) suggested that welcoming children‘s ways of communicating was an important part
of children‘s citizenship, t he teacher and I specifically chose to document the children‘s
words for the petition to support child authorship and enable the children‘s opinions to be
heard. At the time we did not consider that by doing this the validity of t he petition would be
jeopardised. Understandings of citizenship, which emphasi se legal status, rights , and
obligations as demonstrated in this ca se of petition legislation, are inflexible. Petitions are
designed for conventional participation (e.g. , follow ing legislation), not unconventional
participation , such as varia tions in wording.

178
A metanarrative of citizenship in which legal status and obedience to the state
prevail dictates petition legislation and disregards variations such as a petition worded b y
children. The letter, and not the petition, was acknowledged as an expression of interest for
the plight of the Coxen‘s fig -parrot. Although the young age of the children was appreciated
in the letter from the minister (e.g., ―I am encouraged to see that you have such a keen
interest in the environment at such a young age —well done!‖), they were not responded to
as citizens with the right to a voice in parliament to request government action. In a
metanarrative of citizenship as legal status, children are not citizens capable of participation
as they do not have civil or political rights (e.g., the right to vote) (Coady, 2008; Kulnych,
2001). In addition, citizenship viewed as legal status must follow conventional forms
(Gilbert, 1996), such as the legisla ted wording and procedure for petition submission. The
workings of the metanarrative of citizenship as legal status forced an end to the journey of
this endeavour to seek further support for the recovery of the Coxen‘s fig -parrot population.
An opportunity for the children to challenge the decision to disregard their petition was
not possible for a number of reasons. First, by the time the letter of reply arrived, attention had
shifted from the Coxen‘s fig -parrot to child labour in Pakistan. Second, t he chi ldren had moved
onto different classes by the time I reali sed that the petition had not been tabled, so they were
unaware of this omission in the petition process. Third, my capacity to ensure follow -up action in
a crowded curriculum as an external researc her was limited. This experience identified that
further consideration of citizenship collaboration between children and adults is required for
young children‘s voices to be heard in the wider political culture. The next section (6.3.2)
analyses why the pe tition was not tabled.

179

180

Figure 6.2. Letter of reply from the minister.

6.3.2 Analysis of Why the Coxen’s Fig -parrot Petition Was Not Tabled
To explore factors relevant to citizenship collaborations between children an d adults, two
possible interpretations of why the Coxen‘s fig -parrot petition was not tabled are discussed. One
explanation is derived from Lister (2008) , who acknowledge d that a key dilemma of children‘s
practice of citizenship i s that children‘ s acceptan ce as citizens requires demonstration of
capacity. The children needed to demonstrate their capacity to be recogni sed as citizens, but the
adults also needed to acknowledge the children as citizens who could contribute actively to
society . This is indicati ve of different views of children leading to different meanings of what
children‘s participation can be. Requiring children to demonstrate capacities fit s with
metanarratives of children as developing. Acknowledging children as citizens who can actively
contribute to society resonates with views of children as political actors. These ways of viewing
children inform differing ways that adults relate to children. Viewing children as agentic and
seeing children as developing adult citizenship capacities create s the dilemma of children‘s

181 practice of citizenship that Lister recogni sed. This raises the question: is it possible for children
to be seen as political actors by demonstrating citizenship practice as they see it? If the teacher
and I had ensured that the petition followed the prescribed petition wording, would the children
have been seen as possessing capacity? Would the petition have been tabled? Kulnych (2001)
welcomed children‘s ways of communicating in the political arena and this may present as
advoc acy for children‘s agency, but it can also be understood as a romantic ideal with little hope
of being realised or being ‗practical‘ in the wider picture. A notion of honouring children‘s words
as something precious and different to adult words seems to re sonate with a view of children as
tribal (James et al., 1998). Through such a view, children‘s practices are appreciated and
celebrated, yet scope for children‘s learning of socio -political practices can be reduced. In this
case, the teacher and I could ha ve explained and followed petition protocol. The challenge for
adults is to locate a balance between supporting political identities in young children and
enabling points of connection between child and adult practices of citizenship. A view of
children as political actors requires acknowledgment of interdependence with adults (Cockburn,
1998; Hart, 1997). Without connections with adults, children‘s citizenship may offer reduced
capacity for both adults and children to learn from each other and reduced capa city for social
change. Adults need to accept children as citizens and support children‘s capacities. The
challenge is to find a balance between children‘s ways of participating, and building capacities in
adult citizenship practices.
A second explanation is that agency occurs when we begin an action and bring
ourselves into the world or public sphere, which is responded to by others and not blocked
(Arendt, 1958/1998). To Arendt, agency is not possible in situations where the opportunity for
others‘ actio ns is denied in the public sphere. Understood in this way, the petition was an
initiated action in the public sphere that was not responded to, so the children‘s agency was
denied, as was that of the minister. No further action occurred. To Arendt, the pub lic sphere is a
place where we live together with others who are different from us, and it emphasises interaction
with these others. By not tabling the petition and not voluntarily offering an explanation as to
why it was not tabled, interaction with the p ublic sphere ceased. If we had challenged the
decision to not table the petition, interaction of initiated action and responses would have
continued. Based on this understanding, to promote and support the growth of young children‘s
active citizenship part icipation requires ongoing interaction.
These two explanations make visible the difficulties and complexities of children‘s
practice of citizenship within the public realm. Barriers and limitations affected children‘s
citizenship participation in the publ ic sphere and point ed to hegemonic views of children as
future citizens, as opposed to views of children as citizens of today. However, t wo considerations
for adults engaging in citizenship practice with children were identified: a) to build children‘s
capacity as citizens to support wider recognition of children as political actors, and b) to respond

182
to children‘s initiatives in ways that provide further scope for children‘s participation. These two
points offer further understanding of how adults can supp ort young children‘s active citizenship
participation and address research subquestion 1 b) and 2a): How can adults and children work
together to enable young children‘s active citizenship?
6.4 Different Ways of Viewing Child ren and Citizenship Participati on
In analysing children‘s suggestions and implementation of social actions from Cluster -one, it
was clear that the terms ‗children‘ and ‗citizenship‘ participation were understood in
different ways. Metanarratives and ideologies defined characteristics of children and
citizenship participation. Children were viewed as social actors, political actors, and future
citizens. Intentions to support children as social actors and political actors were influenced
by metanarratives of children as dependent on adults , immanent, and developing. Different
ways of viewing children informed by different ideologies were present in conversations
between different speakers and in comments by the same speaker made only moments apart.
Consequently, ambivalence and paradox affe cted possibilities for young children‘s active
citizenship. The variability of meaning ascribed to children cultivated ambiguity and weakened
the positioning and practice of children as active citizens. Ambiguity and variability over
meanings ascribed to c hildren produced limitations, confusion, and dead ends for children‘s
citizenship participation.
Different contexts, different agendas, and different prior experiences explain the
presence of the variety of meanings given to children in the data presented . For example, in
the discussion about campaigns to protect animals (section 6.1.3), prior knowledge and
experience of viewing children as developing influenced my suggestion to participate in the
adult -initiated and managed WWF Passport strategy. The mean ing of the list continued to
change as the idea evolved into a petition seeking support for the recovery of the Coxen‘s
fig-parrot population. Children‘s citizenship participation was ascribed different meanings
from the emergence of Denmark‘s suggestion t o make the list to the minister‘s reply to the
class letter. These meanings included child initiated, autonomous, adult initiated, adult
directed, adult -child interdependence, local interest, engagement with the public realm, and
legislated. Although the w ide range of factors that influence varying meanings given to
children and participation can be read as producing ambiguity, they can also be read as
enabling diverse possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship. Citizenship
participation in this chapter included young children being autonomous social actors,
political actors, or assigned future citizenship orientations of immanence, innocence, or
dependence.
In conclusion, close examination of data revealed that different ways of viewing
children and citizenship influenced possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship. The
intent ion of the teacher and me in support ing children‘s agency was interrupted on a number

183 of occasions by metanarratives of children as developing, immanent, innocent, or dependent.
These metanarratives have a hegemonic impact on people‘s views regarding children and
citizenship participation (Roche, 1999; Stasiulis, 2002) . The interruptions and ambiguity that
they created made it evident that adult support for young chi ldren‘s active citizenship
participation is complicated . The different meanings ascribed to children and participation
shaped the ways in which adult support for young children‘s active citizenship participation
occurred . What was possible and what was ava ilable w ere influenced by different ways of
viewing children and citizenship participation . None of the accounts in this chapter provided
a neat package of successful adult facilitation. There were moments of success that were
interrupted by metanarrativ es drawn on by the teacher and me, which denied children‘s
agency . An awareness of the different and co nflicting meanings ascribed to children and
participation, and how they influence and shape adult responses to children‘s initiated
actions is required to better understand possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship.
6.5 A Political Possibility for Young Children‘s Active Citizenship : Children as
Initiators and Adults as Responders
Analysis of selected data using Arendt‘s (1958/1998) theory of action offered an
understanding of young children‘s active citizenship as political through the interplay of
child -initiated actions that are responded to with others in the public sphere. Such an
understanding offers potential for enabling children‘s citiz enship in ways that include
meanings that children want to give to citizenship, realised by following their ideas with
others. In addition, it offers potential to elevate young children‘s status in society.
Application of Arendt‘s (1958/1998) theory of ac tion to analysis of suggestions of
social actions by young children revealed a workable possibility for young children‘s active
citizenship, which views children as initiators and adults as responders. The teacher and I
responded to a number of the childre n‘s initiatives, such as Denmark‘s list and Declan‘s fig
tree planting, which created social actions . This approach to young children‘s active
citizenship not only involves listening to children‘s suggestions, as Cockburn (1998) and
Roche (1999) recommende d, but also responsive actions. A view of children‘s citizenship
that involves adults responding to young children‘s initiat ives to create social actions in the
public sphere has greater relevance for young children, because they have less access to
resour ces to function independently than children aged twelve years and older.
Organisations such as Free the Children largely consist of children twelve years and older
who initiate and enact social actions autonomously. James et al. (2008) suggest ed that the
emphasis on care and protection in policy and practices for young children limits children‘s
access to resources and participation. Given these limitations, a view of child ren as initiator s
and adult s as responder s seems applicable to young children‘s activ e citizenship. It also

184
addresses the research subquestion: how can adults and children work together to enable
young children‘s active citizenship? However, as noted earlier, how adults respond requires
careful judgment and critical reflection to ensure th at subsequent social actions engage
children throughout the entire process .
Responses to children‘s initiated actions need to be considered carefully to sustain a
climate of interdependence and ensure that adults do not control and deny children‘s agency.
Reflections on my own practice alerted me to the need to be mindful of positioning children as
agentic, for example making decisions with children. Th is study viewed children as political
through application of a view of young child ren as citizens who ini tiate social actions . Arendt
(1958/1998) explains that initiating something is about bringing ourselves into the world or
public sphere and taking the risk of inserting a new idea among others in a web of relationships.
In this sense a view of children as initiators recognises children bringing themselves into the
world: making their voice, their opinions, and their intentions known to others. To sustain this
view, responses to young children‘s initiated actions need to continue to support opportunities for
children to bring themselves into the world through speech and action with others .
This chapter has provided accounts of children as citizens and possibilities for
young children‘s active citizenship as influenced by a practice of social justice storytel ling.
Social justice storytelling as pedagogy influenced Denmark and Declan to initiate social
actions to redress injustices exposed in the stories told. Facilitating the social actions that
Denmark and Declan initiated revealed how metanarratives and ideo logies of children and
citizenship influence the way in which citizenship participation for young children is
defined. A view of young children‘s active citizenship as political is a way to promote and
support young children‘s agency. It occurs through int erplay of child -initiated actions that
are responded to with others. This view requires ongoing critical reflection to ensure
children‘s agency is not denied. T he next chapter analyses themed comments that suggest
retribution, rebellion, and responsibility in young children‘s active citizenship.

185 CHAPTER 7: RETRIBUTION, REBELLION , AND RESPONSIBILITY IN
YOUNG CHILDREN‘S ACTIVE CITIZENSHIP

This chapter explores possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship and who young
children might be as active c itizens by drawing on individual stories of experience . Young
children‘s individual experiences were identified as active citizenship through actions they
initiated to redress injustice. Actions and comments produce life stories of courage (Arendt,
1958/19 98). They demonstrate a willingness to act and speak.
Data were selected from the three most frequently recurring themes: consideration for
another, suggestions of social actions, and suggestions of retributive actions (see Table 4.2
reproduced on the fo llowing page). Due to their frequency, these themes provide evidence of
how young children can be active citizens as well as other possibilities for young children‘s
active citizenship. Data indicative of these themes were analysed to address the research
subquestions:
2 c) What citizenship practices are available and possible for young children?
2 e) Who might young children be as active citizens?
Analysis involved interpreting children‘s initiated actions and comments as stories of citizenship
practice. Indicators of possible metanarratives influencing children‘s comments and actions were
identified and discussed. Through these analytical processes the following insights were
identified: a) what concerned the children, b) what they considered to be just or fair remedies to
redress injustices, c) how they acted, and d) possible influences on their ideas and inspiration for
action. These insights contribute findings to possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship.
This chapter explores three catego ries of identified possibilities for young children‘s active
citizenship: retribution, rebellion, and responsibility. These three categories were selected from
the data because they offer possibilities of young children‘s active citizenship that are
counte rnarratives to metanarratives of children and citizenship. In the first section (7.1), I explore
retribution in children‘s citizenship through analysis of data representing suggestions of
retributive actions as punishment and reciprocal justice. In the sec ond section (7.2), I explore
rebellion in children‘s citizenship through analysis of data that was themed as a suggestion of
retributive action and took a rebellious approach to retribution. In the third section (7.3), I
explore responsibility in children‘ s citizenship by analysing data representative of children
expressing responsibility to others as a subset of data indicative of the theme: consideration for
another. In the final section (7.4), I summarise findings of what is possible for young children‘s
active citizenship and who young children might be as active citizens. These findings are
discussed as evidence of learning in possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship as
influenced by a practice of social justice storytelling.

186
Table 4.2. Summary of frequency of major themes per data week (reproduced for ease of
reference) .
Themes Critical
awareness Consideration
for another Suggestions of
social actions Suggestions of
retributive
actions Suggestions of
alternative
story endings
Data cod es W1 16/07/2007
(TOTAL = 1)
W3 30/07/2007
(TOTAL = 2)
W4 CI 9/08/2007
(TOTAL = 3)
W6 30/08/2007
(TOTAL = 3)
W7 3/09/2007
(TOTAL = 1)
W8 10/09/2007
(TOTAL = 1)
W9 19/09/2007
W9 TI
19/09/2007
(TOTAL = 1)
W11 15/10/2007
(TOTAL = 2)
W12 23/10/2007
W12 TI
24/10/2007
(TOTAL = 2) W4 6/08/2007
(TOTAL = 2)
W5 21/08/2007
(TOTAL = 1)
W6 CI
31/08/2007
(TOTAL = 1)
W7 CI 5/09/2007
(TOTAL = 1)
W 8 10/09/2007
(TOTAL = 3)
W9 19/09/2007
(TOTAL = 6)
W 11 15/10/2007
(TOTAL = 3)
W11 TI
17/10/2007
(TOTAL = 1)
W12 23/10/20 07
(TOTAL = 1)
W13 5/11/2007
(TOTAL = 2) W2 23/07/2007
(TOTAL = 5)
W3 30/07/2007
(TOTAL = 2)
W6 30/08/2007
(TOTAL = 4)
W6 CI
31/08/2007
(TOTAL = 5)
W7 3/09/2007
(TOTAL = 14)
W 8 10/09/2007
(TOTAL = 5) W2 CI
25/07/2007
(TOTAL = 1)
W4 6/08/2007
(TOTAL = 1)
W4 CI 9/08/2007
(TOTAL = 1)
W5 21/08/2007
(TOTAL = 1)
W6 30/08/2007
(TOTAL = 3)
W7 3/09/2007
(TOTAL = 12)
W7 CI 5/09/2007
(TOTAL = 1)
W8 10/09/2007
(TOTAL = 1)
W10 10/10/2007
(TOTAL = 5)
W13 2/11/2007
(TOTAL = 1) W1 16/07/2007
(TOTAL = 1)
W1 CI
18/07/2007
(TOTAL = 1)
W2 23/07/2007
(TOTAL = 2)

W6 30/08/2007
(TOTAL = 1)
W6 CI
31/08/2007
(TOTAL = 1)

Total entries 16 21 35 27 6

7.1 Retribution in Young Children‘s Active Citizenship
The suggestion of r etributi ve actions was identified as a major theme in the children‘s
comments and actions suggested in response to the stories told. My initial response to
children‘s suggestions of retribution was to discuss the consequences of their suggestions.
However, the passion, persistence and proliferation o f their suggestions provoked closer
examination of the place and purpose of their ideas. The children‘s suggestions of retributive
actions were understood to be for punishment, reciprocal justice , or rebellion. Space to
process these purposes occurred, to honour the children‘s ideas before critique through
discussion of consequences.
Data that displayed retribution as punishment and retribution as reciprocal justice
are discussed in this section. The children‘s suggestions of retributive actions as punishm ent
were particularly high in frequency in storytelling workshop seven, in which Craig’s Story
was told. Many of these suggestions (12 suggestions noted in Table 4.2) were cumulative, as
Craig’s Story built on the suffering attached to child labour that wa s introduced with Iqbal’s
Story . The three suggestions for retributive action as punishment selected for discussion
include the suggestion by Molly to burn Ghullah (the factory owner in Iqbal’s Story ) (7.1.1),
the block construction by Scott and Liam that blended or pulveri sed factory owners (7.1.2),
and the ideas of Denmark and Max to arrest or trap cruel factory owners (7.1.3) . To discuss
suggestions of retributive action as reciprocal justice (7.1.4), three suggestions contributed
by Declan are explored. This type of response appeared as a pattern across comments made

187 by Declan and offer s an alternative view of retribution. Exploration of retribution is
concluded with discussion of the place and purpose of retribution in young children‘s active
citizenshi p (7.1.5).
7.1.1 Retribution as Punishment: Burning the Factory Owner
The whole -group discussion after Iqbal’s Story began with many children expressing their
feelings in response to the story. I posed the following question to steer the children‘s
commen ts to suggestions of actions:
Louise: I know you talked about feeling really sad and angry, so perhaps
there is something that you think you as an individual or we as a
group could do? (Lines 406 -408 W6 30/08/2007)
Declan was the first to reply , ―Tell the owner of the factory to the police, because he is
guilty‖ (Line 409 W6 30/08/2007). Then Molly spoke slowly and carefully with this
suggestion.
Molly: To try and —get him —to set a fire and —put him inside the fire
(spoken carefully and slowly with mouth dow n turned at end of
comment ). (Lines 413 -414 W6 30/08/2007)
Her comment surprised me , so I sought clarification.
Louise: You want to set a FIRE and put Ghullah [the factory owner in
Iqbal’s Story ] in the fire?
Molly: (Nods head). (Lines 415 -416 W6 30/08/2 007)
Molly ‘s comment positioned Ghullah as a perpetrator for whom death was the only answer.
Declan‘s suggestion of reporting Ghullah to the police was indicative of a metanarrative of
good citizenship through lawful citizenship practice (Batstone & Mendie ta, 1999) . This
metanarrative was probably readily available to Molly , as her father is a police officer.
However, Molly suggested burning the perpetrator or unlawful citizen: an act of violent
resistance. The teacher considered Molly‘s suggestion atypical for Molly .
Teacher: Yeah the message Molly gave was quite powerful. She‘s so much a
conformist. I wouldn‘t have imagined that, you know. (Lines 147 –
148 W6 T C 31/08/2007)
The comment from Molly present ed as an anomaly (to the teacher) and suggest ed a need for
closer examination about why Molly made a suggestion that was considered unconventional .
Stories of painful punishment inflicted on villains to establish the happiness of the
hero feature in a number of fairy tales. Tatar (2003) recogni sed this patte rn in her critique of
the Grimm Brothers‘ versions of fairy tales, where the more painful a punishment is, the
greater the corresponding happiness of the hero. In Molly‘s comment, the hero seemed to be
Iqbal in that she suggested that he set the fire (e.g., ―To try and get him to set a fire‖).
According to Tatar, heroes are either presented in fairy tales as helpless victims (e.g.,

188
Cinderella) , or seekers (e.g., Prince Charming) , or both (e.g., Hansel and Gretel). Counter to
the position of the victim is the villain, who is often so demoni sed in fairy tales that it is
impossible to forgive him or her. This seems to be the case with Molly‘s positioning of
Ghullah, as she saw his acts of cruelty to children as so unforgiveable that total annihilation
through fi re was the answer. A metanarrative that permeates this pattern in fairy tales is the
―Old Testament logic of an eye for an eye‖ (Tatar, 2003 , p. 183 ). This kind of logic works
by balancing the humiliation and helplessness of the victim/hero with retaliatio n and
punis hment. The metanarrative of ‗eye for an eye‘ may have shaped Molly‘s response to the
question of what could be done to address the ill treatment of child labourers. Her strong
identification with the ―helpless victim‖ (Iqbal) appeared to fuel Mo lly to articulate this
response .
The way Molly expressed her comment offered a strong indication of an affect ive
response . She delivered the words with intensity and purpose whilst transfixing a steely
gaze. I had never heard her express a comment in the story discussions in this way before. In
no way was this comment delivered lightly. Her comment then is evidence of the influence
of my practice of social justice storytelling.
To read Molly‘s suggestion of retributive action as producing a story of who M olly
is as an active citizen provides two possibilities. First, Molly presented as someone who
views inhumane practices as so unforgiveable that the person who inflicted cruelty on
children (Ghullah) does not have the right to life. Second, Molly presents as a citizen who
wants to enable happiness for those who have suffered by removing the causes of their
suffering. This paints a brief portrait of who Molly might be as an active citizen in this
context. This interpretation of Molly‘s suggestion of retribut ive action describes a possibility
for young children‘s active citizenship as a passionate means of balancing the humiliation
and helplessness of the victim/hero with retaliation and punishment of the villain.
7.1.2 Retribution as Punishment: Blending the Factory Owners
Scott and Liam, two boys aged five years, also made comments that suggested violent
resistance in response to child labourers experiencing inhumane treatment at the hands of
factory owners. The following excerpt shows their response to Craig ’s Story. In this story
the children heard Craig‘s account of the experiences of child labourers in workplaces in
India, Pakistan, Nepal, the Philippines , and Thailand. One of these accounts involved
children making bricks in a brick factory. During the po st-story activities in week seven,
Scott suggested and participated in building a brick factory. When the videographer asked
Scott what he had built, he replied:
Scott: The person blended all the BAD /
Juliet: It‘s a brick factory that‘s why these look l ike bricks, that‘s why.
This is a brick factory.

189 Liam: And it cut up people. It cut up people —BAD people.
Louise: Tell me about this.
Scott: It blends the people who are bad. It blends the bad people. They get
carried up and sucked in. They get taken int o the big blender, and
then everything stays in there. (Lines 612 -617 W7 3/09/2007)
Louise: So they go in through here? ( points to top of tower )
Scott: And the blade goes here ( points at base of tower ). (Lines 622 -624
W7 3/09/2007)
Like Molly, Liam and Sc ott cast those who harmed the children in the story as
villains or ―bad people‖. They too seemed to view the acts of the ―bad people‖ as
unforgiveable, devising a brutal punishment of blades chopping them to pieces through their
macabre invention of a bric k factory tower that also functioned as a human -pulveri sing
machine. It is possible that Old Testament and fairy tale logic of brutal punishment for the
villain who inflicted h arm on victims (Tatar, 2003) is also present in the ideas behind the
block cons truction. Tatar noted that physical violence in fairy tales had special appeal for
children, especially with the punishment of villains . She suggested that children see
themselves as downtrodden and underprivileged and therefore identify and empathise wit h
the protagonist. This may be what drove Liam, Scott , and Molly‘s desires for the punishment
of cruel factory owners.
Superhero stories that feature elaborate weapons and the moral order of good
reigning over evil (Hall & Lucal, 1999) may have influenced the creation of a model human –
pulverising machine by Liam and Scott. Dyson (1997) suggest ed that machines are often
used in superhero stories to ward off catastrophe and that superhero stories enable ―children
to feel powerful in a (pretend) danger filled world‖ (p. 14). The human -pulverising machine
seemed to be constructed with the intent of ending evil catastrophe. In explaining their
construction, Scott and Liam were excited, energetic, and their utterances were fast and
urgent, also illustrative of act ion in superhero ―get the baddies‖ adventures.
Another possible influence for Scott may have been his interest in technology. I had
come to know Scott as a child who was fascinated by machines. On many of my visits he
asked questions about the features an d functions of the digital audio recorder, the digital
video recorder , and the data projector that I brought to the classroom. An i nterest in
technology may have influenced Scott‘s contribution to devising a machine to inflict death
on ―bad people‖.
Who Sc ott and Liam were as active citizens in this moment can be interpreted from
their comments and actions. Like Molly, they seemed to view inhumane practices as
unforgivable and wanted to enact violent resistance. Yet Scott seemed to have a more
technical and calculated approach to claim power (Dyson, 1997) than Molly, as his

190
comments in particular were focused on explaining the technical features of the human –
pulverising machine. Scott and Liam did not seem to have the same anger that Molly‘s
expression intim ated. Instead , they seemed to be excited about the thrill of getting a
―baddie ‖ and maybe by the thrill of their innovative idea of the human -pulverising machine.
Their citizenship response to the inhumane treatment of children was to invent a machine for
violent resistance. Who Scott and Liam are as citizens in this example is then suggestive of
being inventors, thrill seekers, and violent resisters, who put an end to evil practices.
This describes a possibility for young children‘s active citizenship as acts of
technically focused violent resistance to injustice. For those who position children as
innocent, the ideas of Scott , Liam , and Molly for violent retribution present a contrasting
image of children. Some may view these suggestions of retributive ac tions as indicative of
children as evil through their violent and barbaric implications (James et al., 1998).
However, in terms of young children‘s active citizenship I propose that these suggestions are
indicative of how Molly, Scott , and Liam identified with the protagonists in the stories about
child labour and their urge to fight back. Liam and Scott were committed to justice, yet
seem ed unaware that their suggestions denied the rights of the villains.
7.1.3 Retribution as Punishment: Arresting the Fact ory Owners
Denmark and Max also suggested retributive actions in the storytelling workshop in week
seven. T heir ideas began as a proposal for a post -story activity with the following
conversation , which had a theme of ‗catching the baddies‘.
Denmark: Mayb e we could make a list of ways to try and arrest them more
easier and quicker if they might be speedy or something, like a
cheetah.
Declan: A police car.
Denmark: (To Tony ) Oh YEAH! They are the fastest land animal.
Tony: They can even go faster than a c ar!
Louise: Did anyone have another idea?
Max: We could make a trap for them.
Teacher: Trap for who?
Declan: Bad people.
Max: Bad people who are hurting kids in factories.
Louise: Maybe that links with Denmark‘s idea —ways of arresting them.
Denmark: You could join in too ( points to Max ) you join in. (Lines 457 -469
W7 3/09/2007)
In Denmark‘s first articulation of his idea, the theme of speed has a strong presence in his
―catch the baddies‖ idea. There is a strong sense of adventure and action in his c omment.
Themes of speed, action and adventure in the pursuit of catching the baddies are common in

191 superhero stor ies (Hall & Lucal, 1999), which are appreciated by many young children
(Carter & Curtis, 2000). In storytelling workshop two, Denmark told me t hat his father is a
police officer ; this may have influenc ed his interest in arrest as an act of retribution .
Max added to Denmark‘s idea with the suggestion of making a trap, which
continued the ―catch the baddie s‖ narrative . At the request of the teache r, Max defined
―who‖ the trap was for, that is, ―bad people who are hurting kids in factories‖. The
suggestion of arresting those who inflict unjust treatment portray Max and Denmark as
citizens who want to stop harm to child labourers. The remedy they pro pose for this injustice
is restraint of those who inflict the harm. However, suggestions of restraint do not present an
understanding of ―hurting kids in factories‖ as so unforgiveable that the punishment should
be brutal death as Molly, Liam and Scott sug gested. Instead Max and Denmark present a
desire to control these ―bad people‖ by capturing them.
Later, David joined Denmark and Max with the teacher to record a list of ways to
arrest the ―bad people who are hurting kids in factories‖. The list include d: a) hiding and
then havi ng a rope to try and catch them, b) locking them up with handcuffs, c) capturing
them in a trap, and d) p utting a rope on the floor and letting them trip (W7 3/09/2007) . The
conversation around the trap idea went as follows.
Max: When they are about to work, we got to trap, lift them up, so it falls
on them ( uses hands to shape an image of a trap and looks upwards
towards ceiling ).
Denmark: Oh YEAH that would be AWESOME and you could carry them to
jail.
Max: And push them around .
Denmark: And they‘ll be in jail with a net inside.
Max: Put them in jail, like a slide. He falls to jail by the slide. (Lines 476 –
500 W7 3/09/2007)
Max and Denmark seem ed quite excited by their plans (e.g., ―that would be AWESOME‖).
Max‘s ideas for trap ping could have been inform ed by popular culture stories that he had
previously experienced, where a net falls onto the baddie and he lands in jail via a slide.
Their comments, in particular those from Max (e.g., ―and push them around‖) are suggestive
of having no respect or care for people who harm child labourers.
The suggestions of retributive actions from Max and Denmark differ from the
instant gratification of the definitive proposals of capital punishment from Scott, Liam and
Molly. A desire for ongoi ng gratification through controlling or manipulating the ―bad
people‖ seemed to drive their various suggestions (e.g., handcuffs, traps, ―pushing them
around‖, ―put them in jail‖). Like Scott and Liam, Max and Denmark seem to enjoy the thrill
of power and adventure embodied in the ―catch the baddies‖ narratives (Dyson, 1997). Idea s

192
of retributive actions from Max and Denmark suggest an understanding that by being bad ,
―bad people‖ lose their right to freedom. This presents Max and Denmark as citizens who
support the removal of freedom from those who have inflicted harm upon others . Their ideas
appear to be influenced by the metanarrative of good citizenship, in which the law is upheld
through disciplinary control (Batstone & Mendieta, 1999; Foucault, 1977a). They seemed to
appreciate the shift in power, where the ―bad people‖ (factory owners), who had created
situations where children experienced powerlessness were now experiencing powerlessness
themselves (e.g., handcuffs, traps, ―pushing them around‖, ―put them in jail‖). In Iqbal’s
Story and Craig’s Story , the class heard about children being forced to work long hours with
no control over when they did and did not work. The ideas of handcuffs, traps, ―pushing
them around‖ and ―put them in jail‖ from Max and Denmark seem to seek to control and
restrain ―bad‖ factory owners .
This provides a n interpretation of comments and actions by Max and Denmark as a
story of who they are as active citizens. They present as citizens who uphold the law with a
strong commitme nt to justice. This vignette defines a possibility for young children‘s active
citizenship as supportive of the removal of freedom fr om those who cause harm upon others.
7.1.4 Retribution as Reciprocal Justice: Declan’s Ideas
Declan had a different approa ch to retribution compared with most of the other children, and
it is because of this difference that I have selected his suggestions for analysis. I noted this
difference in his suggestions of retributive actions on three occasions. The first occasion was
the children‘s follow -up conversation in week two. The second was in response to Iqbal’s
Story , and the third was a suggestion in the Two Blocks story.
At the follow -up conversation in week two , I explained how in the WWF Terai Arc
Project (discussed in Chapter 6) poachers who were arrested were probably fined or sent to
jail, to which Declan replied:
Declan: Maybe they could put them in a birdcage. (Line 121 W2 C C
25/07/2007)
His statement surprised me. I appreciated Declan‘s creativity , and his idea pr ovoked me to
consider the situation differently. Although the other children and I all laughed at the image
of a hunter in a birdcage , we discussed its possibilities. Perhaps Declan suggested a birdcage
because prior to these comments w e had been talking a bout birds. I had just told them of the
Coxen‘s fig -parrot and suggested that we could use Denmark‘s list to aid the recovery of the
Coxen‘s fig -parrot population. This may have influenced Declan‘s plan of reciprocal justice,
where those who capture and ca ge birds are given the same experience. Declan‘s suggestion
was indicative of a view of retribution as reciprocal justice. His idea for those who inflicted
infringement of liberties on birds was to experience the same infringement of liberties

193 themselves, that is, being trapped in a bird cage. Denmark and Juliet responded to Declan‘s
idea with these comments:
Denmark: And lock it up. (Line 124 W2 C C 25/07/2007)
Juliet: Same as in jail. A very interesting idea , mmm. (Line 130 W2 C C
25/07/2007)
They associa ted Declan‘s idea of the birdcage with conventional human incarceration. The
experience may be the same as conventional human incarceration, but by being locked in a
birdcage those who capture animals could feel what it was like for the animals that they
caught. In this way Declan‘s idea possessed potential to provoke a shift in consciousness for
those who have hunted birds to consider the plight of hunted birds and cease their hunting
practices.
The second occasion occurred in week six. After Molly suggest ed setting Ghullah
on fire, Juliet , then Declan , made the following suggestions.
Juliet: You could do something mean to him to make him feel like the
same as they were treated.
Declan: YEAHHH!! Like make HIM work. (Lines 432 -434 W6 30/08/2007)
The comment by Juliet can be aligned with thinking about reciprocal justice to which Declan
offered an apt suggestion given the context: make the carpet factory owner (Ghullah) work.
Declan suggested that Ghullah needed to experience labour firsthand. I suspect Decla n was
referring to the same work that the children experienced, that is, 12-hour days of knotting
threads on a loom in cramped conditions without breaks or food whilst enduring verbal and
physical abuse. Through this proposal of reciprocal justice, Ghullah could learn of the
impact of his actions upon others.
The third occasion occurred in week 10 during the telling of the Two Blocks story,
when I asked the children to devise ideas of how the large group of children could get more
blocks. This occurred wit h the children seated in two concentric circles, with each child in
the inner circle facing a child in the outer circle. The inner circle of children constituted the
ideas people , who told , at timed intervals , their ideas to children in the outside circle, who
would move on one place to hear another idea. In the busyness of this I recorded the
following comments among several children in one section of the concentric circles.
Ebony: (To Patrick ) We could STEAL them.
Patrick: (Thrusts both fists in the a ir with enthusiasm )
Nick: We could steal the blocks.
UN: No we could go to jail.
Nick: (To Denmark ) If we steal all the blocks we could put them
there( points to where the blocks are kept in the room ).

194
Declan: (Denmark and Nick’s conversation becomes so animated that
Declan joins in with them rather than talking to Charlie who he is
facing )
We could take all their blocks away so they know what it FEELS like
to not have a lot of blocks __ Mine‘s a bit better because they will
know what it feels li ke to not have a lot of blocks. (Lines 79 -89 W10
10/10/07)
Ebony, Patrick, Nick , and Denmark all seemed keen supporters of the idea of stealing the blocks
as a way of establishing balance in the distribution of blocks. The suggestion made by Declan
differ ed from that of the others by his use of the word ―take‖ instead of ―steal‖, and he offered a
justification for his plan of action, that is, to enable the group with plenty to know what it would
feel like to have few. He declared that his idea was better fo r the reason that the group with
plenty w ould then know what the group with only a few were experiencing, and that from this
position they would know what it ―feels like‖. Even though the action suggested by Declan was
the same as that proposed by Ebony an d Nick, he packaged it with explanations that presented
potential positive outcomes for both groups of children in the story Two Blocks .
Like Molly, Liam, Scott, Max , and Denmark, Declan‘s way of redressing injustice
was to focus his comments on retributio n for those who have caused harm. Yet Declan did
not propose violent acts of retribution like Molly, Liam, and Scott . Instead , he seemed to
view retribution as reciprocity with regard to the experience of victimi sation. He appeared to
recogni se the infring ement of liberties the victim had experienced and then devise a way that
the person who had acted unfairly could be made to experience the same infringement of
liberties. His approach is suggestive of the narrative theme, walk in the shoes of another
(that was discussed as a motif in section 5.4). He seems to consider that similar experiences
of disadvantage may cultivate empathy or at least experiential knowledge of such suffering,
similar to the idea of sympathetic imagination (Nussbaum, 1997).
The sugge stions of retributive actions by Declan to redress unjust treatment of
others produce a story of who Declan might be as an active citizen in these contexts. They
portray Declan as a citizen who sees justice as being best played out through reciprocal
means . He seemed to want those who treated others unfairly to come to know what it feels
like. This seemed indicative of wider and deeper thinking o n the issue. He considered that
the unfair treatment could be addressed through a possible shift in awareness of the person
who caused the harm. In effect , he was proposing provocations that could lead to shifts in
understandings by knowing what it feels like. This is significantly different to the ideas of
Molly, Liam, Scott, Denmark , and Max in that they seemed to consider that the unfair
treatment could only be stopped if the people who act unfairly were stopped, either by
ceasing to exist (through brutal death) or being incarcerated. Declan presented as a citizen

195 who wanted to address injustices through provocatio ns that had potential to provoke
awareness for the perpetrators of the impact of the harm or disadvantage that they had
inflicted on others. He did not deny the offenders a right to life , as Molly, Liam , and Scott
did, or their right to free participation in society , as Max and Denmark did. Instead Declan
seemed committed to plans of equitable repercussions to redress unfair treatment of others.
The ideas of reciprocal justice proposed by Declan suggest conscious creative
conceptualising, such as that obse rved by Connell (1971) in his study of children‘s
development of political beliefs. Declan‘s suggestions of reciprocal justice provide examples
of a young child‘s idiosyncratic thinking of ways to redress injustices; demonstrating the
potential of idiosync ratic creativity that is possible in young children‘s active citizenship.
These suggestions of reciprocal justice provided by Declan present possibilities for young
children‘s active citizenship built on creativity and hope to cultivate empathy in perpetra tors
towards their victims.
7.1.5 Why Retribution? What Does it Mean?
The above accounts demonstrate how retribution became a notable theme in comments and
actions suggested by some children to the stories told. After the shock of Molly‘s comments,
the teacher and I consciously decided to provide space for the children to express their
emotive responses to Iqbal’s Story and Craig’s Story , rather than attempting to maintain an
early childhood environment of niceness (Hard, 2005; Stonehouse, 1994) where ac ts of
violence are actively excluded from being talked about or performed. Our conscious
pedagogical decision was informed by ideas on aesthetic encounters in education (Dewey,
1934; Abbs, 1989; Greene, 1995). The story initiated the aesthetic encounter an d then
interactive activities cultivated imaginative action. The children‘s engagement in these
activities provided ideas about what citizenship might be for young children. Through this,
plans for retribution were a strong element of the children‘s sugges tions of actions to redress
unfair treatment of others. The suggestions seemed to encapsulate the children‘s reaction to
injustice in the respective stories. For example, Molly‘s idea of burning Ghullah suggested
anger over the harm Ghullah had inflicted o n the children who worked in his carpet factory.
The invention of a human -pulverising machine by Scott and Liam, and the list of ways to
arrest by Denmark and Max provided an avenue for the children to conquer who they saw as
the baddies. The ideas of reci procal justice from Declan exhibit a desire for perpetrators to
know what their acts of harm feel like. All of these suggestions seem to present the intensity
of these children‘s resistance to unfair treatment on others.
Providing space for children to sug gest retributive actions enabled autonomy as
Young ( 1995 ) defined it. The children made and acted upon choices that they considered to
be fair remedies to injustices, which in these data were retributive actions.

196
The children readily sorted the people wh o featured in these stories into either good
or bad categories. Possible thinking behind their comments and actions could be that being
good (i.e., helping others) was acceptable; yet being bad (i.e., harming others) was
intolerable. This message is indica tive of the metanarrative of the good citizen equating with
obedience, which is perpetuated through fairy tales (Tatar, 2003) and other children‘s stories
(Whalley, 1996). Such messages invariably have had an impact on the children in this study,
with trac es of these messages of good and bad infiltrating their responses. However , the
complexities of humanity required exploration beyond the binary of good and bad (as noted
in Chapter 5), as the children were responding to biographical stories, so real people were
being demonized.
The high frequency of children‘s expression of citizenship through suggestions of
retributive actions to redress unfair treatment pointed to a significant feature of possibilities
for young children‘s active citizenship. There was d iversity among their suggestions. Each
suggestion had meaning for each child who initiated the action. They produced stories of
children‘s motivation to redress injustice by punishing the perpetrator. These examples
illustrated young children‘s capacity to sympathise with those who experience injustice,
which in turn motivated their actions to redress the injustice.
7.2 Rebellion in Young Children‘s Active Citizenship
Rebellion as a response to unfair treatment was strongly evident in a story told by thr ee girls
(Molly, Ella , and Fergie) in the last week of data collection. The suggestion of stealing
blocks in the Two Blocks story discussed in the previous section may be considered a
rebellious act, but that was not the children‘s intention. The ir intenti on was to establish
balance in the distribution of blocks. The story discussed in this section details rebellious
acts seemingly played out for retribution. Although this is the only example of a theme of
rebellion present in the data, it is discussed beca use it presents a marked difference to other
responses from the children throughout the study, in particular to the stories that the children
told in workshop 13.
First, to establish the significance of the example of retribution as rebellion, an
example of the absence of rebellion in the children‘s participation in the social justice
storytelling program is described (7. 2.1). Next, the story of rebellion by Molly, Ella , and
Fergie is told and analysed (7. 2.2). This section conclude s by discussing the pla ce and
purpose of rebellion in possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship (7. 2.3).
7.2.1 No Rebellion
An example of the absence of rebellion in responses to unfairness was notable in the whole
group discussion after the Two Blocks story. The tea cher had asked the children what action
they would take if she did not let them play with the blocks for the rest of the year.

197 Teacher: What would you do? Would you sit and take that? You wouldn‘t
mind not playing with blocks all year?
Max: I would just take that, because I don‘t like playing with blocks very
much … I‘d just do some drawing or colouring.
Teacher: So you think you‘d do something else. What about you Declan ,
would you do something about it —if I said you are not playing with
the blocks all y ear?
Declan: Yeah I would go to Miss R‘s class and ask her.
Teacher: What if Miss R said: ―No you are not going to play with mine
either.‖ What would you do then?
Declan: Then I would go to Miss G‘s class and ask her.
Teacher: And she said ―No you are no t playing with mine either.‖ What
would you do then?
Declan: Give up.
Teacher: NO! You wouldn‘t do that. Would you?
Ella: Go to the new classroom.
Peter: Go to the new classroom and nobody will see.
Teacher: No, nobody‘s using those blocks they‘re bran d new. What would
you do…that means we‘ve got four classes of blocks and no one can
use them what are you going to do?
Declan: Just give up.
…
UN: Go home.
Ella: Buy more blocks.
…
Charlie: Go to a different class.
Teacher: I don‘t know of any othe r classes that have blocks.
Peter: Go to a different school.
UN: A different kindy. (Lines 315 -348 W10 10/10/2007)
The conversation continued on until the teacher asked , ―Wouldn‘t anyone complain?‖ (Line
355-356 W10 10/10/2007). Rebellion or resistance d id not seem available in this context.
The children all seemed to accept the ruling of the teacher and were prepared to accept it,
give up , or find other sources of blocks . None of them indicated any action other than
seeking alternative sources of blocks.
Rebellion as an act of defiance is an uncommon theme in stories told by young
children, especially girls (Broström, 2002). Stories for children typically have an underlying
moral tone (Whalley, 1996), which was shaped largely by early recorders of fairy a nd folk

198
tales (e.g., the Brothers Grimm ) who manipulated the stories to embed the moral order of the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries (Tatar, 2003; Zipes, 1983) . In modern times rebellion
has become more common in stories for children, with Where the Wi ld Things Are (Sendak ,
1963) being a classic example. Yet the legacy of niceness and goodness in children‘s stories
has left a strong impression on moral order in early childhood (Zipes, 1983, 1994). The
presence of moral messages in stories for young chil dren may have had some influence on
the availability of ideas for defying authority for this Prep class.
7.2.2 The Story told by Molly, Ella and Fergie
In week 13 I asked the question, ―What story do you want to tell me?‖ This was a conscious
decision to provide space for reciprocal story -making/storytelling. The children had listened
to the stories that I chose to tell for many weeks, so workshop 13 was designed to provide
space for each child to present a story in reply. At the workshop, a range of mate rials was
available for the children to select props for their stories, including pieces of fabric, stones,
sticks, small blocks, animal figures, finger puppets of families that represented differing
cultural background s, Guatemalan worry dolls, and small carpets from Pakistan. Open -ended
natural materials were selected, along with some materials that were representative of stories
told (e.g., Pakistani carpets). I wanted the stories that the children told to be responses to the
stories I told, not to be re -enactments. The mixed selection of materials was chosen for this
reason. The teacher managed the materials like a props department, keeping track of
borrowing and offering guidance on selection of materials when children asked. The
children then found a s pace in the room to play with the materials and create their stories. I
video -recorded the ir story telling when each child, pair or group of three indicated that they
were ready.
The stories told by the children were shaped in three different ways. Some st ories
seemed to be shaped by the props that the children selected. For example, Denmark told a
story of a racing car driver winning a trophy, as car and trophy pieces were unwittingly
included in a set of blocks. A second group of stories were recalls of s tories that I had told.
For example, Carl told of the wise old woman‘s boat sinking from The Rich Factory Owner
and the Wise Old Woman . A third group of stories presented as playing with themes and/or
characters from stories that I told, yet took a new dir ection, a different context, or combined
multiple characters and themes in a different way. For example, Juliet told of two
endangered emus with many people and animals gathering together, yet there was no action
taken, as that would occur in the sequel. T he story Molly, Fergie, and Ella told fitted within
this third category in that it drew from Iqbal’s Story yet took the story in a new direction. I
have selected their story for analysis, as it seemed to present the strongest response among
the stories the children told with regard to citizenship as taking action to address unfairness.

199 In preparation for their story, Molly, Ella and Fergie gathered wooden peg figures
that they had made themselves, a felt finger puppet that represented a man of dark skin
colour in overalls, a piece of green velvet material, and one of the Pakistani carpets. The
following is a transcript of their story interspersed with interpretations of narrative influence
and Arendtian (1958/1998) interpretations of who they present as citi zens. The comments
made in regular font in parentheses were explicit metacommunication signals to other
players.
Molly as Factory Owner: (Stern voice ) Do the carpets! Do the carpets NOW!!
Hurry up! Hurry up! Hurry up! HURRY!!
Ella as child labourer: I‘m trying to put my hair on.
Molly as Factory Owner: (You have to say I‘m trying)
Ella as child labourer: I‘m TRYING!!
Fergie as child labourer: I‘m hurrying.
Molly as Factory Owner: Quick!
Ella & Fergie as child labourers: ( In unison ) Twist, twist, twi st.
Ella as child labourer: I‘ve done it!
Fergie as child labourer: I‘ve done it!
Molly as Factory Owner: Quickly! Quickly! QUICKLY!!
Fergie as child labourer: I‘m TRYING! I‘m TRYING! I‘m trying! I‘m done!
Molly as Factory Owner: Are you all done? I ‘m writing you done. Ching
ching! But you still stay here and make more
carpets the same as THOSE. Quickly! QUICKLY!!
Fergie as child labourer: We‘re flying.
Ella as child labourer: (We are going home and you didn‘t know where
our house was.)
Molly as F actory Owner: QUICKLY!
Fergie as child labourer: (And they flew away to their house.)
Ella as child labourer: Let‘s just snuggle up. Okay?
Fergie as child labourer: We‘re freezing! Everybody in it.
Ella as child labourer: Come on everybody! You to o with our carpet.
(Now we are in bed.)
So far in their story -making/storytelling, Molly presents a believable account of the
―work harder and faster‖ work ethic of a factory owner , to which Ella and Fergie respond
earnestly (e.g., ―I‘m trying‖; ―I‘m h urrying‖). This is suggestive of a master and slave
narrative, yet the factory workers that Ella and Fergie play were not passive followers who
helplessly and silently did the tasks they had been assigned, such as the younger brother in
Two Brothers (Appen dix G) . Instead , they declared that they were ―trying‖ and that they

200
were ―done‖. Ella and Fergie‘s characters show streaks of agency, as they resist staying to
do more work as the factory owner had demanded by absconding home to bed. Out -of-role
direction s were issued by Ella (e.g., ―you didn‘t know where our house was‖) to control the
actions of the factory owner and the plot. Through their characters, Ella and Fergie seemed
to be presenting a story of survival as a child labourer, where you do what you c an to
survive. In this case their survival strategy was to escape to the safety of bed.
Their story -making /storytelling continued, presenting a new twist to their tale of
child labour.
Fergie as child labourer : (Just pretend he could find us)
Fergie as child labourer: YOU GO AND MAKE SOME
FACTORIES [carpets]!
Molly as factory owner: I found you GIR -R-R-LS! (That‘s the
factory owner and that‘s Iqbal) ( points to
finger puppet of man in overalls for factory
owner and wooden peg figure for Iqbal )
Ella as child labourer: Get A -WAY!
Fergie: (No that‘s the factory owner.)
Fergie as child labourer: GO AND MAKE SOME CARPETS!!!
Molly as child labourer: Now we‘re the boss[es] now!
ALL as child labourers: DO IT DO IT DO IT DO IT!!! —
ahhhhhhhhh!!! ( addressed to finger puppet
of man in overalls as factory owner )
Fergie as child labourer: (Tosses factory owner across the room )
WEEEEEE!
Ella as child labourer: And we snuggle up in bed (pretend you
don‘t see me go)
Molly: (You sneak away and we don‘t kno w that
you have gone until the morning)
Fergie as child labourer: Sis?!
Molly as child labourer: Where is she?
Fergie as child labourer: She might be on the kite.
Molly as child labourer: She might be downstairs.
Ella: (Pretend I wasn‘t downstair s and no one
looked for me and no one could find me)
Fergie as child labourer: If we go away for a minute then she might
come to us.

201 (To factory owner with a stern voice) You
make the carpet!
Fergie & Molly as child labourers: GO AND MAKE THE CARPET!
AHH HHH!!!
GO AND MAKE THE CARPET!
AHHH!!!
GO AND MAKE THE CARPET!
AHHH!!! ( Fergie tosses factory owner )
Molly as child labourer: Sis-terrrr! (pretend she‘s in the shadows)
She‘s in the SHADOWS!!
(Quietly ) Quickly he might find us. They
are going to kill us .
Ella as child labourer: Over here! He will never find us here.
Fergie as child labourer: Let‘s dump it in the garbage ( making
reference to the precious carpet they have
stolen from the factory owner) . Can I
come?
Ella as child labourer: Yes.
Fergi e as factory owner: Where are those GIR -R-R-LS????
Molly: (And he didn‘t even see them)
Fergie as factory owner: My glasses are not working.
Ella: (And then we hop up and say ‗go and make
the carpets‘)
All as child labourers: GO AND MAKE THE CA RPET!! GO
AND MAKE THE CARPET!!
AHHHHHHH!!! ( Fergie tosses factory
owner puppet across room )
Fergie: (And we keep saying and then he came
back again and again and we keep saying it
together)
ALL as child labourers: GO AND MAKE THE CARPET!! GO
AND MAKE TH E CARPET!!
AHHHHHHHH!!! ( Fergie tosses factory
owner puppet across room )
Fergie: (That‘s the end)
Ella & Molly: (No its not)

202
ALL as child labourers: GO AND MAKE THE CARPET!! GO
AND MAKE THE CARPET!!
AHHHHHH!! ( Fergie tosses factory owner
puppet across room )
Ella as child labourer: GO AND MAKE THE CARPET!!
Fergie: (Up here, up here.) ( Gesturing to Molly and
Ella to join her with her character’s figure
on teacher’s desk )
Molly as child labourer: We stole his precious carpet!
Fergie as child l abourer: Everybody hop on.
Ella: (And I‘ll drive)
Fergie as child labourer: His precious carpet. (It‘s his flying carpet)
Ella as child labourer: Go and make the CARPET! Go and make
the CARPET!
Molly as child labourer: Shhh! Shhh!
Fergie as ch ild labourer: Quick I think the man is coming. (and then
he comes)
Fergie as factory owner: I found —Oh NO! My precious carpet!! ( his
carpet is now a crunched piece of
cellophane )
Molly as factory owner: Where are those cheeky GIR -R-R-LS? (and
he couldn‘ t find them could he)
Fergie as factory owner: WO-O-O-WW!! ( factory owner falls off
desk to floor)
Molly: (We‘re done.) (W13 30/10/2007)

In the remaining passage of this story, the child labourer characters progress from
survival strategies to outri ght rebellion through an act of mutiny. The existing authority (the
factory owner) was overthrown (both in position of power and literally as Fergie repeatedly
tossed him across the room) with the declaration of ―We‘re the boss[es] now‖ and ―GO
AND MAKE TH E CARPET!!!‖ Through this blatant power reversal, a theme of the desire
of children for power over authoritarian adults, such as carpet factory owners, is made
visible. Molly, Ella and Fergie seemed to connect with the helplessness and powerlessness
experi enced by child labourers in Iqbal’s Story and recognised that freedom could be
achieved through power reversal.
Themes of defiance were strong in the story. The inclusion of such elements as
mutiny and stealing treasure suggested traces of pirate adventur e stories. Molly, Ella and

203 Fergie even included the concept of ―hiding in the shadows‖, which featured in the classic
pirate adventure Peter Pan (Barrie, 1911). Pirate adventure tales that counter metanarratives
of good citizenship convey disregard for aut hority, rules and conformity. However, pirate
adventure stories rarely position females as non -conformist adventurers; male characters are
more commonly positioned as active and potent (Nikola -Lisa, 1993; Turner -Bowker, 1996;
Zipes, 1983). Non -conformist b ehaviour was previously observed as atypical for Molly
(section 7.1.1). This raises questions as to why Molly, Ella and Fergie played out a story that
defies authority. Molly, Ella and Fergie conveyed an affective response to the powerlessness
and sufferin g that they felt in their experience of Iqbal’s Story (as discussed in section 5.4 in
Chapter 5). This affective response spurred their desire for power reversal as a means of
stopping the unfair treatment of children: another possibility for young childre n‘s active
citizenship.
Further to these elements of power reversal, defiance of authority, and non –
conformity, Molly, Ella and Fergie present awareness of their offences through their acts of
hiding to avoid being caught. This suggests that their acts of defiance were not performed
with a completely anarchic attitude. Although they expressed little regard for the factory
owner by frequently tossing him across the room, they acknowledged it was risky for them
as they chose to hide for fear of repercussions. This is suggestive that Molly, Ella, and
Fergie possessed awareness of possible consequences of their actions, that although they
may have placed themselves in the position of power, and the factory owner in a position of
subservience, they knew that the factory owner had the lasting authority. As storytellers,
Molly, Ella, and Fergie made numerous efforts to sustain a more powerful position for child
labourers by stealing the factory owner‘s carpet, repeatedly demanding ―GO AND MAKE
THE CARPET‖, tossing h im across the room, damaging his carpet, and finally, throwing
him off the desk. A possible underlying meaning to this story of mutiny could be that as
children, Molly, Ella, and Fergie were acutely aware that children possess only brief
moments of power, and that it is adults who hold positions of authority in society. With this
understanding, Molly, Ella and Fergie saw that only through the physical removal of the
factory owner was there any hope of releasing the children from forced labour.
Analysis of the story told by Molly, Ella , and Fergie provides an example of who
young children might be as active citizens as demonstrated through play. Their creative
story -making was packed with elements of magic (flying carpet, hiding in the shadows) and
adventure (mutiny) and offered innovative and playful suggestions to redress injustices.
Analysis of their suggestions reveals an underlying desire to disempower the factory owner.
From an Arendtian (1958/1998) perspective, the story revealed possible answers to wh o the
heroes were, which in this case is just as much about Molly, Ella , and Fergie as the
characters they portrayed. The line between Molly, Ella , and Fergie as narrators and as

204
characters was blurred in their story -making /storytelling . Perhaps they acted out what they
desired in their play, which is what Davies (2003) and Gilbert (1994) say children do. Molly,
Ella, and Fergie were citizens who resisted injustice and valued freedom of choice (e.g., the
choice to go home when their work was done in the fac tory) and expression (e.g., to express
their opinions and decisions to the factory owner). However, in their story it is not people in
general, but children in particular, for whom they devised ways to obtain and sustain power.
Rather than the general term of democracy, perhaps Molly, Ella , and Fergie enacted
pedocracy or children‘s self -rule such as Janusz Korczak endeavoured to create in
orphanages in Poland (Cohen, 1994; Lifton, 1988). A strong message in their story was a
desire to overpower the factory owner because of the unjust treatment of child labourers,
presenting a possibility for young children‘s active children‘s citizenship in which children
express their desires to disempower those who treat others unjustly.
7.2.3 Why Rebellion? What Does it Mean?
As presented in the story told by Molly, Ella , and Fergie rebellion might be viewed as a
claim for power. Molly, Ella , and Fergie portrayed the experiences of Iqbal and his peers as
powerless and helpless, making rebellion necessary. The story emer ged from the children
playing with the materials. A context of play provided space for the children to portray a
world of great flux and anarchy (Sutton -Smith, 1997). The story told by Molly, Ella , and
Fergie provided space for them to express their affect ive response to Iqbal’s Story . The three
girls had not rehearsed or planned the story together beforehand, as I discovered when
interviewing them two weeks later (ME&F I 14/11/2007). By providing space for the
children to tell a story, feelings and thought s about the events that occurred in Iqbal’s Story
were expressed.
Documentation and analysis of the story told by Molly, Ella , and Fergie explains
possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship as resistance to unfair treatment through
rebellion ag ainst authority. Molly, Ella , and Fergie played out this possibility through the
imaginary world of story -making /storytelling . Yet if play is understood as a place to express
desires (Davies, 2003; Gilbert, 1994), their claim for power through rebellion ma y have
wider meaning than simply a s a response to Iqbal’s Story . The story provided a view of
citizenship (for these children in this context) in which unfair treatment is actively resisted.
Children are constantly told by adults what to do throughout thei r school day. This may be
why when the teacher asked what they would do if they were not allowed access to the
blocks that none of the children said they would complain or dispute authority even if unfair.
The opportunity for story -making offered a space t o defy unfair authority and claim power,
making visible what citizenship participation might be to young children . Molly, Ella , and
Fergie imagined a place where children could defy unfair authority through power reversal,

205 expressing opinions, making decis ions, and generally having greater control over their
actions.
This story of rebellion portrays a possibility of young children‘s active citizenship as
defiance of unfairness and injustice, and desire for some control of their actions. Molly, Ella ,
and Fe rgie are citizens who resist injustice and value freedom of choice and expression. This
possibility for young children‘s active citizenship differs from those previously discussed in
that Molly, Ella , and Fergie were seeking civil rights for the child carp et factory workers that
they portrayed (or possibly themselves). The previous examples addressed the perpetrators
of unfair treatment to others.
7.3 Responsibility in Young Children‘s Active Citizenship
Another major theme identified in children‘s partici pation in the workshops was
consideration for another, with 21 entries noted in Table 4.2. Many of the data samples
representative of this theme related to one child considering another child or family member
during discussions in the storytelling workshop s. One data event stood out from the other
entries representative of this theme because the children did not just express consideration
for another but responsibility to others through enactment of social actions. Data from this
event provided examples of a communitarian understanding of citizenship: purposeful group
action and a strong sense of responsibility to others (Delanty, 2002; Etzioni, 1993; Janoski,
1998). Two data samples of closing reflections on the study are included towards the end of
this se ction as they also illustrate displays of responsibility to others. Evidence of children
expressing responsibility to others is investigated because the actions of responsibility to
others were initiated and enacted by the children, unlike some events disc ussed in Chapter 6,
which were adult initiated, directed , and manipulated.
The data event that provided evidence of children expressing responsibility to others
was a meeting initiated by Denmark to discuss child labour. The following section (7.3.1)
provides an account of Denmark initiating this meeting. A social action that was initiated
and organi sed by Ebony in this meeting is then discussed (7.3.2). Further evidence of
children‘s responsibility to others is provided in 7.3.3. Explanations of childre n‘s
expressions of responsibility to others are contained in each section. This section conclude s
with a discussion of the place and purpose of responsibility to others in possibilities for
young children‘s active citizenship (7.3.4).
7.3.1 Initiating a Me eting to Listen to Others
After the whole -class discussion of The Rich Factory Owner and the Wise Old Woman in
workshop eight , Denmark suggested having a meeting as one of the post -story activities. At
the time, I interpreted this as an interest in discuss ing the issue of child labour to devise

206
plans of action. Denmark and I attended the meeting along with two other children, David
and Ebony. It began in this way.
Louise: So first would you like to talk about how you feel about how these
children are trea ted?
Denmark: Oh I‘M not coming up with any ideas.
Louise: You‘re not —coming up with any ideas?
Denmark: (shakes head )
Louise: So why did you suggest the meeting?
Denmark: To listen to what other people have to say. (Line 373 -387 W8
10/09/2007)
The reason Denmark offered for the meeting genuinely surprised me, as it seemed atypical
of what I had come to know of his behaviour and thinking. He was usually quite verbal, as
evidenced in Table 4.3 where Denmark is identified as one of the major contributo rs of data
representative of the identified themes. In addition, most of his comments were suggestions
of solutions to address problems presented in the stories.
Denmark‘s suggestion of a meeting to listen to others indicates an active citizen who
organi ses, facilitates , and networks. He expressed interest in making action happen by
initiating the meeting and then planned to listen to the ideas of others. In terms of
citizenship, Denmark acted as a rational autonomous being according to the definition of
autonomy espoused by Young (1995) and the conception of a democratic person espoused
by Kant (1784/1992) by making an explicit choice to create space for the expression of
opinions. From an Arendtian (1958/1998) understanding, Denmark was being political an d
agentic by initiating the action of a meeting with others. He took the risk of starting
something new. Further to this, he maintained agency and supported the agency of others by
not controlling their responses to his initiated actions ; instead , he state d that he wanted ―to
listen to what other people have to say‖. The meeting continued with discussion of ways to
redress injustices in child labour and what we could actually do. Suggestions from the
children focused on gathering supplies to build schools. I suggested we could build a model
to which Denmark replied , ―I want to do real things‖ (Line 425 W8 10/09/2008).
This assertion of a genuine desire to engage as a citizen in the wider community
made visible how young children often engage in pretend or p lay situations rather than in
―real things‖. Denmark‘s comment could be interpreted as a rebuttal of romantic notions of
play advocated by Froebel (1887) and Rousseau (1762/2007), which has children sheltered
from the corrupting influence of society. An as sertion for ―real things‖ challenges the
metanarrative of young children existing in worlds of play, domesticity , and school (Roche,
1999) . It also indicates the limitations young children can experience when opportunities for

207 meaning -making are consistent ly restricted to the world of play, such as occurred for Max in
the activities after Iqbal’s Story (section 5.3.3).
Denmark‘s comment signalled an indication of the marginalisation that children may
experience in citizenship practice due to limited access to engagement with the wider
community. This aligns with what Arvanitakis (2008) defined as the marginalisation and
citizenship deficit category in his typology of citizenship spaces. In this category , citizens
feel they are not listened to or represented by civic institutions and consider participation
pointless because they claim their opinions will not be heard. In this context, Denmark is a
citizen who wanted to perform actions in the real world, seeking to make a real impact. He
was not satisfied with the conventional experiences offered to children aged five to six years
where real world contexts may be played with, drawn, built, talked about, but rarely engaged
with directly through participation as communitarian citizens.
After Denmark‘s request for engagement with the real world, Ebony suggested
writing a letter to seek help from someone to build a school. The children suggested a
number of possibilities, such as the principal, the Prime Minister , and builders. Then I
remembered that an emergency ar chitect who had recently returned from building a school
in Pakistan8 was visiting the class together with their buddy class the next day. I proposed
that the emergency architect could be a suitable recipient of their letter. The children agreed
and made s uggestions of what to include in the letter. The letter read:
―Dear Joe
Could you please bring some wood to help build a school in Pakistan? Could you
collect the timber from our homes to take as well? We will give you some toys to
take for the school. Th ank-you for coming to visit us.‖ (W 8 10/09/2007)
Denmark, David , and Ebony signed the letter. When I was writing the letter, Denmark
offered this contribution:
Denmark: And I was just thinking that we could ask those people what their
ideas were and I co uld share it with you guys. I could ask them.
Louise: Which people?
Denmark: Umm the kids at the other table. (Lines 488 -491 W 8 10/09/2007)
I agreed with his suggestion, so Denmark went to the drawing table and asked what their
ideas were, then returned to our meeting and relayed what he had heard.
Denmark‘s action to gather ideas from other children presented another expression
of responsibility to others, similar to that which he had suggested at the start of the meeting.

8 The emergency architect visit had been arranged after the Prep class shared their recollection of Iqbal’s
Story with their buddy class, which sparked a commitment by both classes to embark on ongoing
collaborative work on the issue of child labour in Pakistan.

208
He took responsibility to gat her and include ideas in the letter to Joe from children attending
other activities. Denmark acted politically by initiating an action with others that others
supported, so that his agency and that of others were enabled (Arendt, 1958/1998). It seemed
to present as responsive and purposeful interaction with others.
On reflection of the meeting in a whole -class discussion at the close of the
workshop, Denmark offered this account:
Denmark: The meeting was KIND of like a big meeting, like a BIG adults‘
meeti ng, kind of. (Line 804 W8 10/09/2008)
One way of reading Denmark‘s desire ―to do real things‖ and classifying our meeting as
―like a BIG adults‘ meeting, kind of‖ is that he had set the meeting up and then assessed or
measured it against his emerging under standings of active citizenship. In this comment,
Denmark seemed acutely aware of the demarcation in society between adults and children
and placed meetings within the adult world (―like a BIG adults‘ meeting‖). Perhaps this
relates to his request ―to do r eal things‖ , assuming that he equates ―real‖ with ―adult‖. In this
interpretation of his comments, the meeting can be read as ―kind of‖ satisfying Denmark‘s
request ―to do real things‖. His comments present an understanding of a child‘s view of
adult meeti ngs, suggesting a degree of excitement at having access to ―a BIG adults‘
meeting, kind of‖. Like Denmark‘s request ―to do real things‖, his comment on the meeting
raises the issue of young children‘s access to resources to engage in active citizenship.
Denmark‘s comments make visible young children‘s experience of marginalisation and
citizenship deficit , as defined by Arvanitakis (2008), in that it indicates young children‘s
limited access to avenues for their opinions to be heard.
Denmark‘s comments res onate with findings by Prout (2001) , in which he recogni sed
that children aged five to sixteen were alert to adult tokenism. In addition, Denmark‘s plea for
real participation connects with the suggestion by Lansdown (2001) that there needs to be scope
for meaningful action so children can actually use their citizenship skills to make a difference.
Other researchers ( DeWinter, 1997; Kulnych, 2001; Minnow, 1999) have also noted that if
children actually witness change as a result of their actions this c an enable childre n to view
themselves as citizens. The actualisation of change can in turn support recognition of children‘s
citizenship identities and sustain their motivation for ongoing participation. Denmark‘s
participation alluded to a possibility for youn g children‘s active citizenship as a desire for real
world experiences to create real change.
When Joe the emergency architect visited, he read the children‘s letter requesting that
he collect wood from their homes. He explained to the Prep class and the Year 6 class (the Prep
class‘ buddy class) that it was very difficult to ship timber into Pakistan. Most of the timbers
used for buildings in Pakistan came from Russia. This provided practical information o n the
logistics involved in sending raw materials to Pakistan to build a school. Joe supported the

209 children‘s idea of collecting toys, and he provided the teacher with a suitable contact person and
address for receiving the collection. There was still a chance for Denmark to participate in real
social act ion.
7.3.2 Organising Toy Collection
Ebony took responsibility for the idea of organising a toy collection, which she initiated at
the meeting. After I had written in the letter to Joe that he collect timber from the children‘s
homes to ship to Pakistan t o build a school, I asked what the children thought should be
inside the school. Ebony replied, ―toys‖ (Line 497 W8 10/09/2008). I then lead a discussion
on how to organise the class to collect toys to send to Pakistan.
Louise: What do you think Ebony? Do you think we should have a whole –
class meeting and tell everyone that they need to bring a toy in or
should we send a note home so they‘ll remember it better?
Ebony: Send the note home. I‘m going to write the note I think at home.
Louise: Okay?!
Denmark: The people that worked here, they could do their own note.
Louise: Well maybe we could write it here and I could get it photocopied
and I could bring it tomorrow.
Ebony: If you want to do that.
Louise: So then you don‘t have to write it twenty times. It would take a long
time to do that. (Lines 598 -607 W8 10/09/2008)
Ebony: My Mum can write it down and then photocopy it twenty times.
Louise: Oh, so does your Mum have a photocopier?
Ebony: Yes she‘s got a printer at home.
Louise: So do you want to do it at home or do you want to do it now? It‘s
your choice.
Ebony: I‘ll ask my Mum. I think I‘ll get a piece of paper at home and I‘ll
ask. (Lines 612 –616 W8 10/09/2008)
The discussion went on to determine the words for a note to go home that read, ―Please
bring a toy to school no bigger than a shoe box that we can send to children in Pakistan.‖
Following through on her promise, the next day Ebony delivered to the teacher twenty
copies of the note for distribution to every child in the class. Ebony had not r equired support
in explaining the task to her mother from the teacher, the teacher aide , or me. Every child in
the class did donate a toy , and the toys were sent to the contact in Pakistan that the
emergency architect had given to the class teacher. They w ere not received in Pakistan
before the Prep children graduated to different year one classes, so the class did not hear of
the impact of their social action.

210
This account of Ebony‘s participation offers further understanding of possibilities
for young ch ildren‘s active citizenship. Ebony, like Denmark, presented as a citizen who
accepted responsibility by volunteering to undertake one of the tasks that emerged from our
meeting. In addition, she thought through the task to devise an efficient way to produc e
twenty copies of the note by accessing her available resources, that is, her mother and her
mother‘s printer. She was responsible in following through on her commitment to complete
the task with the assistance of her mother. Interpretation of Ebony‘s com ments and actions
as a story of young children‘s active citizenship reveals Ebony as a citizen who is pragmatic,
keen to get the task done, a helper, a doer, and a reliable ‗completer‘ of tasks in organising
social action. All of these qualities reflect po ssibilities for young children‘s active
citizenship as responsibility to others.
Ebony also displayed autonomy as Young (1995) defined it, as she made the choice
to undertake the task of producing copies of the request for toy donations and acted upon her
choice. As noted by Stasiulis (2002), children are often assumed to be excluded from
autonomy (along with reason and rationality) in participation rights, yet Ebony‘s display of
autonomous participation challenges this assumption. These acts of participati on performed
by Denmark and Ebony provided further evidence to support claims by de Winter (1997),
Lansdown (2001) , and Stasiulis (2002) that children are capable of much more than many
adults think.
7.3.3 Concluding Displays of Children’s Responsibility t o Others
In week 12, when reflecting over many of the stories that I had told, I asked each of the
children to identify the story from which they learn t the most. Every child readily nominated
a story. When I asked children why they identified with the sto ry that they nominated, most
replied along the lines of ―Because it was sad‖. Declan however, offered more detail.
Louise: Declan are you ready to tell me which story you learnt the most from?
Declan: Iqbal —that one I learnt a LOT!
Louise: What did you learn?
Declan: How poor they actually are. And I was going to think about going on,
when I‘m an adult, going on a huge trip to Pakistan exploring all of the
sad parts and making rich and giving all of the money away. (Lines
497-502 W12 23/10/200 7)
Declan‘s explanation of his learning from Iqbal’s Story indicated responsibility to others. Instead
of simply acknowledging Iqbal’s Story as a ‗sad‘ story as many of his peers had, he seemed to
feel a sense of responsibility towards the suffering of som e children in Pakistan, illustrated
through his philanthropic plans for adulthood. It was inspiring to hear from a child at six years of
age. From the above comments and ideas for actions, Declan can be described as an emerging
humanitarian citizen, good S amaritan, and philanthropist.

211 His expression of ―exploring all the sad parts‖ also indicates a sense of curiosity and
perhaps a need to believe that children can experience such poverty and suffering. In this regard
he does not present as an armchair ph ilanthropist, but one who plans to engage in ‗on the ground‘
philanthropic support. From this reading, his responsibility to others is expressed through money.
Perhaps he recognised a disproportionate distribution of money between himself and some
children in Pakistan and felt responsible for redressing the imbalance.
Declan‘s plans for the future in response to Iqbal’s Story can be read as ongoing plans
for responsibility to others. Another indicator of children‘s displays of ongoing or sustained
responsi bility to others was noted in the reflections and observations of the teacher aide o n the
children‘s participation in the study.
Teacher Aide: They seem to be much more aware. Not only of the things that you have
been telling them, but things on tel evision —they are taking note. (Lines
1-2)
…
Louise: So generally it‘s that they are more aware —as you mentioned in your
opening comment, so more aware of?
Teacher Aide: Yes even more aware of their peers. I mean that comes and goes, but
when they are doing something wrong, you know to each other, they stop
to discuss it with them. They seem to be able to draw more on the
experiences of these stories about having respect and valuing people.
(Lines 42 -47 27/11/2007)
These comments suggest an increa se in the children‘s awareness of experiences and opinions of
others obtained through participation in the study. Children discussing their conflicts with each
other can be read as an expression of responsibility to others by engaging in dialogue to resolv e
the conflict. The children‘s increased awareness of each other also suggests their growing
capacity for compassion for one another, which Nussbaum (1997) identified as a requirement of
world citizenship. From a position of compassion , there is respect an d care (responsibility) for
one another and a deeper awareness of the suffering of others. This reflection paints a picture of
the children in this Prep class as peacemakers and global citizens with a growing awareness of
humanity. The comments offered by Declan and the teacher aide indicate the influence of social
justice storytelling as pedagogy for young children to engage in active citizenship.
7.3.4 Why Responsibility? What Does it Mean?
Violent proposals of retribution and rebellion may be read as neg ative qualities of
citizenship in that they clash with ideals of humanitarianism and obedience, yet
responsibility to others would more commonly be welcomed in pedagogical ideals for
citizenship practice. The data from Denmark, Ebony, Declan, and the teach er aide have been
included in this chapter because they are displays of child -initiated responsibility for social

212
actions. Being responsible is often equated with adults not children. Beliefs about children‘s
diminished capacity for responsibility have bee n used in arguments against children‘s
citizenship rights (Kulnych, 2001). The comments and actions from Denmark and Ebony,
and Declan‘s plan provide evidence that young children can express responsibility to others
and therefore engage in a communitarian understanding of citizenship (Delanty, 2002;
Etzioni, 1993; Janoski, 1998).
The above examples from Denmark, Ebony and Declan suggest children can be
responsible to others on real projects that can create real change. Both Denmark and Ebony
took their part icipation in the meeting and its related tasks seriously. Their citizenship
practice displayed evidence of young children as active communitarian citizens through
purposeful group action with a strong sense of responsibility to others ( Delanty, 2002;
Etzio ni, 1993; Janoski, 1998). The arguments of Millei and Imre (2009) that children do not
have legal or administrative capacity to fully participate in political life are countered by the
demonstration of Denmark and Ebony that there are possibilities for chi ldren‘s participation
in communitarian citizenship. Adults can observe what children initiate and employ their
legal and administrative capacities to support children‘s access to communitarian citizenship
participation. Demonstration of young children‘s ca pacities, such as those of Denmark and
Ebony, provides evidence to support the acceptance of young children as citizens in wider
circles. As Lister (2008) noted, demonstration of capacity is required for children‘s
acceptance as citizens.
7.4 Possibilities for Young Children‘s Active Citizenship
The significance and purpose of the themes of retribution, rebellion and responsibility were
explored in young children‘s active citizenship to redress injustices. Suggestions of
retribution were interpreted to conv ey the intensity of the sympathies of young children with
those who experience injustice . Rebellion was interpreted to convey intense feelings of
powerlessness and helplessness that motivated acts to claim power and control in children‘s
lives. Children‘s expressions of responsibility to others were interpreted as desire and
capacity for children to engage in communitarian citizenship. The ways these young children
chose to redress injustices are defined as examples of active citizenship.
Exploration of you ng children‘s expressions of retribution, rebellion, and responsibility
identified possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship, which included:
1. Ideas to balance the humiliation and helplessness of the victim/ hero with retaliation
and punishment of the perpetrator/villain.
2. Technically focused violent resistance to unfair treatment of other children.
3. Support for the removal of freedom from those who cause harm upon others.
4. Creativity and hope to cultivate empathy in perpetrators towards their victims.

213 5. Children exercising agency by controlling their actions, expressing opinions and
making decisions.
6. Consideration of the points of view of others.
7. Recognition of children‘s marginalisation in active citizenship through their limited
access to real reso urces.
8. Desire for participation in real action in real world experiences to create real change .
9. Autonomous acts of participation that express responsibility to others.
This range of possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship recognises heteroge neity
and fluidity in citizenship as defined by Arvanitakis (2008). The notion of being
heterogeneous is evident across the diverse displays of citizenship presented. The notion of
fluidity is evident in the different displays of citizenship by individual children in different
circumstances. For example, Denmark acted by supporting the removal of freedom from
those who cause harm to others, then later expressed desire for participation in real action.
Recognition of heterogeneity and fluidity illustrates th at these findings are not generalisable;
instead they offer insight into the breadth of possibilities for young children‘s active
citizenship.
In this chapter, understanding of speech and action forming life stories (Arendt,
1958/1998) was used to interp ret who nine young children were as citizens. Descriptions of
these nine children as active citizens include:
1. Molly, Liam, and Scott who viewed inhumane practices as unforgiveable .
2. Max and Denmark who upheld the law with a strong commitment to justice.
3. Declan who sought to provoke empathy for those harmed in those who caused the
harm through equitable repercussions.
4. Molly, Ella, and Fergie who resisted unfair authority and valued freedom of choice
and expression.
5. Denmark who desi red participation in the ad ult/‗real‘ world and demonstrated
responsibility to others through self -initiated responsive interactions.
6. Ebony who autonomously completed tasks to support the class participation in a
communitarian act.
7. Declan who saw himself as a humanitarian and phila nthropic citizen in the future.
These portraits recognise the complex range of qualities young children possess as active
citizens, as well as their capacity and strength. These children were compassionate and
autonomous , qualities that are often not assoc iated with young children. Each of these
children portrayed courage and willingness to act by initiating actions. They exercised
agency in many ways and defined themselves as agentic beings. Different views and values
shaped who each child was as a citizen . These young children were value -driven, agentic
citizens.

214
Exploration of children‘s comments and actions as examples of their active
citizenship enabled recognition of how children choose to be agentic to redress the unfair
treatment of others. In each o f the data events discussed in this chapter the children were
agentic, expressing opinions and participating autonomously. Such a view recogni ses
children‘s agency not as a quality that adults can cultivate but rather as something that
emerges, that childr en seize at their will. As Gallacher and Gallagher noted (2008), children
exercise agency when and how they choose, regardless of the methods a researcher u ses. The
suggestions and acts of retribution, rebellion, and responsibility to others were evidence of
children exercising agency. Violent resistance and rebellion may not be condoned by those
who honour niceness in early childhood education, yet they are valid responses. By
scratching below the surface, understandings of desires to seek balance to unfai r treatment
and desires to claim control of their own actions were identified. This suggests validity in a
shift from pedagogical and research emphases on adults endeavouring to support and enable
children‘s agency, to being alert to how, when , and where c hildren are agentic. Such an
approach could offer greater scope for authenticity in children exercising agency as they
choose. This offer s a more authentic approach of engaging with children as agentic beings,
as only individuals themselves have control of their agency. Young children‘s active
citizenship may then be defined as when children exercise agency to redress injustice. This
understanding builds on the view of young children‘s active citizenship, discussed in
Chapter 6, in which young children init iate actions and adults respond to and support the
enactment of these actions.

215 CHAPTER 8: LIVING THEORIES, SIGNIFICANCE, AND IMPLICATIONS

This final chapter discusses learning that occurred through my inquiry into w hat possibilities for
young children ‘s active citizenship can be as provoked through a practice of social justice
storytelling. I began with knowledge that young children can express enthusiasm and capacity to
engage with social justice issues and initiate social actions to redress injustice s, as described in
the Prologue. This study was framed to learn more about the capacity of storytelling to motivate
young children to be active citizens and what young children‘s active citizenship can and might
be. After four years of research into this i nquiry, this chapter summarises findings that are the
refined tip of the iceberg of broad and deep explorations into social justice storytelling and young
children‘s active citizenship. Engagement in research of my practice created living educational
theor ies (McNiff, 2007; Whitehead, 1989; Whitehead & McNiff, 2006) of social justice
storytelling as pedagogy and of possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship. These
theories are living, as they consist of tentative and emerging ideas that articulat e my learning in a
practice of social justice storytelling, and in possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship.
These theories are not statements of certainties and did not emerge out of neat success stories,
but instead emerged from questions, struggles and conflicts over meaning, over issues such as
how freedom of expression can be addressed (Chapter 5), and what young children‘s citizenship
can be (Chapters 6 and 7). Potential significance and implications of these theories to the fields of
storytelling, education, and citizenship are explained. First, findings in response to objective one
are summarised and presented as a living theory of social justice storytelling as pedagogy (8.1).
Second, findings in response to objective two are summaris ed as a living theory of possibilities
for young children‘s active citizenship (8.2). Possible implications for early childhood education,
children‘s citizenship, and storytelling are discussed as relevant in both sections 8.1 and 8.2.
Third, recommendatio ns for further research are proposed in relation to limitations of the study
(8.3). The chapter concludes with closing reflections on the significance of the study (8.4).
8.1 A Living Theory of Social Justice Storytelling as Pedagogy
A living theory of soc ial justice storytelling as pedagogy emerged through analysis of my
practice of social justice storytelling. A practice of social justice storytelling involved sharing
social justice stories as aesthetic encounters, combined with critical discussion and ac tivities to
share thoughts, ideas and search out the problematic borders of issues of injustice. This living
theory was driven by objective one, ―To explore social justice storytelling as pedagogy that
enables young children‘s active citizenship participat ion‖, and addressed the research
subquestions:
1 a) What qualities of social justice storytelling support or provoke young children‘s
participation as active citizens?

216 1 b) How can adults and children work together to enable young children‘s active
citizenship?
Four motifs emerged from regular reflection on recurring questions and offered a way to explain
through stories the qualities that supported or provoked young children‘s participation as active
citizens (as discussed in Chapter 5). The motifs are ideas formed through reflection in and on
action. They explain the influences in my practice at the time in relation to young children‘s
active citizenship and form statements of explanation of my learning for a living theory of social
justice storytelling as pedagogy .
A motif of story -tailoring highlighted a need for responsiveness in my practice in order
to build community and meaning with listeners, by tailoring subsequent stories based on
responses to preceding stories . A motif of spinning and weaving functioned by plotting how the
stories and the social actions they set in motion interconnected to form meaning. A motif of
freedom of expression illustrated a need for ongoing critical reflection of endeavours to support
agency and multiplicity in young children‘s fre e expression of contributions, opinions, choices,
and decisions in a practice of social justice storytelling. A motif of walk in the shoes of another
involved: a) biographical tragedies, b) aesthetic qualities (e.g., descriptive language), c) active
partic ipation of children in the story, and d) opportunities for the children to express opinions and
feelings about the stories, to cultivate experiential understanding of what someone else has
experienced. Collectively, these four motifs form a living theory o f social justice storytelling as
pedagogy that provokes and promotes young children‘s active citizenship. This living theory was
formed through reflection of practice at a particular time; it is not fixed, nor replicable, rather it is
alive and open to ong oing intersections with others.
Although this living theory was created through subjective reflection of a
contextualised practice shaped by my values of agency, responsiveness, interconnectivity,
multiplicity and practice, others may learn from these des criptions of motifs of social justice
storytelling as pedagogy. The proposal of four motifs contribute knowledge to previously
proposed notions of storytelling as pedagogy (e.g., Egan, 1986; Jaffe, 2000; Kuyvenhoven, 2005;
Rosen, 1988). The motifs may be c onsidered relevant signposts to other storytelling teachers
wishing to cultivate understandings, responsive interactions, and empathy in ways that are
relevant to participating learning communities. They have potential applicability for single
storytelling experiences to ongoing storytelling programs. The motifs alert storytelling teachers
to:
1. Tailor stories for the audience to cultivate broad awareness of the complexities of social
justice issues.
2. Spin and weave connections between stories and actions to acknowledge and follow
what the stories set in motion.

217 3. Continually reflect on opportunities for freedom of expression as endeavours to engage
with children as agentic beings in diverse ways.
4. Cultivate aesthetic and affective story experiences that take t he listener for a walk in the
shoes of another , as if the story is happening to them.
Storytelling teachers may draw from this living theory to inform their own practice by taking
what has meaning for them just as an individual draws from a story her own implicit meanings,
subjectification and perspectives (Bruner, 1986). Different aspects may speak to different people
in different ways, just as a story triggers different meanings for different people in different
contexts at different times. Storytelling as pedagogy was applied according to how Freire (1970,
1973, 1974, 1985, 1998) defined pedagogy, as a two -way exchange of seeing, listening,
wondering, and dialogue. My practice of social justice storytelling sought to provoke and
promote young children‘s active citizenship by seeing and imagining, listening, wondering about
and dialoguing the complexities of humanity, and taking action to redress injustices.
Understandings of my practice and its potential may inspire others to engage with storytelling as
pedagogy to provoke and promote active citizenship with children of all ages. The possibilities
for a teacher to engage in social justice storytelling with a group of children in an ongoing
working relationship have potential to be far more fruitful than wh at was possible in this study,
given I was an external researcher with confined time restraints.
My living theory of social justice storytelling as pedagogy contributes implications to
early childhood education. In particular it offers possibilities for e arly childhood practices that
address outcome two of the recently introduced Early Years Learning Framework of Australia
(Commonwealth of Australia, 2009), which states that ―children are connected and contribute to
their world‖ (p.25). Social justice stor ytelling as pedagogy provides a way to cultivate young
children‘s connections and contributions to communities in which they belong. Through
storytelling and discussion of stories broader understandings of fairness and diversity can be
provoked. And by ask ing: ‗What does the story ask you to do?‘, children can then engage in
social responsibilities through active community participation. The accounts of social justice
storytelling as pedagogy provided in this thesis and the framework of four motifs provide
possibilities and considerations for early childhood practitioners to address outcome two of the
Early Years Learning Framework and promote and support young children‘s active citizenship.
My living theory of social justice storytelling as pedagogy contri butes implications to
education for social change. Although the use of narratives has been discussed in education for
social change literature (e.g., counternarratives), the use of storytelling has been explored
minimally. Most literature on education for social change involves children of upper primary or
high school age. Explanations of learning in my practice of social justice storytelling provoking
social change with young children provides evidence of the possibilities for storytelling and
young childr en in education for social change. The intimate, performative and aesthetic qualities

218 of storytelling cultivated compassion, the understanding of others, and in turn motivated young
children to express responsibility and action for social change to redress injustices. A living
theory of social justice storytelling as pedagogy contributes knowledge on the potential of
storytelling to provoke education for social change, and for young children to contribute to social
change.
The above summarises my living th eory of social justice storytelling as pedagogy as
explanations of my learning articulated through four motifs: story -tailoring, interconnectivity,
freedom of expression, and walk in the shoes of another . Formed through reflection of my
practice, this livi ng educational theory is alive and open to ongoing intersections with others. It is
hoped that storytelling teachers, early childhood practitioners and educators for social change
explore and expand on this theory to increase possibilities for young childr en‘s active citizenship.
8.2 A Living Theory of Possibilities for Young Children‘s Active Citizenship
A living theory of possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship is proposed through
statements of explanation of my learning through analysis of young children‘s participation in a
social justice storytelling program. This theory was shaped by the second objective of the study,
―To explore what young children‘s active citizenship might be as provoked through social justice
storytelling‖. To addres s the second objective, findings were sought to these questions:
2 a) How can adults and children work together to enable young children‘s active
citizenship?
2 b) What proposals for social actions do young children offer?
2 c) What citizenship practices are available a nd possible for young children?
2 d) Which metanarratives and ideologies influence young children‘s active
citizenship?
2 e) Who might young children be as active citizens?
Analysis of evidence of young children‘s active citizenship discussed in Chapters 6 and 7
produced the following statements of explanation of learning in possibilities for young children‘s
active citizenship:
1. Different ways of viewing children influence young children‘s active citizenship (8.2.1).
2. Retribution, rebellion, and responsibility have a place and purpose in possibilities for
young children‘s active citizenship (8.2.2).
3. Young children possess complex qualities as active citizens (8.2.3).
4. Young children‘s active citizenship can be political and authentically agentic (8.2.4).
The followin g sections extrapolate each of these statements of explanation respectively with
suggested implications for early childhood education and children‘s citizenship. My living theory
of possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship offers ideas for ear ly childhood
practitioners and those who engage with young children in the public sphere to support the

219 inclusion and participation of young children as active citizens both in the learning community
and public sphere. It is a living theory, so it is open to ongoing change as I share it with others.
8.2.1 Different Ways of Viewing Children Influence Young Children’s Active
Citizenship
Throughout this thesis the influence of different ways of viewing children has been recognised
and discussed. In particular, ways of viewing children that have a totalising effect
(metanarratives) were seen to limit possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship.
Metanarratives of children as developing, immanent, innocent, and dependent were recognis ed as
having a hegem onic impact on what was possible and what was available for young children‘s
active citizenship . Even though my intentions in this study were shaped by ideologies and values
that welcomed agency and multiplicity, these metanarratives were still present and interfered
with the capacity for agency and multiplicity in possibilities for young children‘s active
citizenship. To bring young children‘s active citizenship to fruition, children need to be seen as
agentic beings of today. Metanarratives of children as developing, immanent, innocent, and
dependent cast children as citizens of the future. Analysis of my facilitation of citizenship
collaborations with young children found that critical awareness of the influence of different
ways of viewing children is re quired. To build on these findings, unacceptable practices of power
as the outworkings of these metanarratives need to be questioned with and by children, and social
action to change these practices enabled. These are processes that Freire (1974) advocated to
―avoid the danger of massification‖ (p. 19) in education for social change. Widespread belief in
children as developing, immanent, innocent, and dependent cultivates blind following of what
may be seen as irrational practices of power over children, su ch as withholding knowledge from
them. Critical awareness of the influences of these metanarratives can identify ways to avoid
following irrational practices of power blindly.
Recognition that metanarratives influence young children‘s active citizenship h as
implications for storytelling as pedagogy. Awareness of the influence of different ways of
viewing children can guide the selection of stories to be told to young children and the way in
which they are told. Biographical tragedies crafted with aesthetic qualities and the active
participation of children were identified in this study t o provoke and promote young children‘s
active citizenship . Opportunities for the children to dialogue about such stories further cultivates
young children‘s awareness of the influence of metanarratives of children and citizenship on
possibilities for their engagement in active citizenship. Attention to the influence of
metanarratives of children and citizenship in social justice storytelling aids promotion of agency
and criti cal awareness in young children‘s active citizenship.
Awareness of the influence of metanarratives of children and citizenship on
possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship can guide pedagogical practices that provoke

220 and promote young children ‘s active citizenship in early childhood education. Reflection on my
pedagogical practices found different practices shaped by differing ways of viewing children
limited or supported further possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship. The teache r and
my endeavours to support young children‘s active citizenship were messy as metanarratives of
children and citizenship infringed on our attempts to promote children as agentic. Learning from
this experience alerts to a need for critical awareness of t he influence of metanarratives of
children and citizenship in early childhood education, to question irrational practices of power
and seek pedagogical practices that support young children as agentic beings. Pedagogical
practices need to challenge accepte d limitations perpetuated by metanarratives, and engage in
practices, such as making decisions with children, and seriously listening and responding to
children‘s ideas, that offer greater scope for young children‘s active citizenship in the public
sphere.
In citizenship, awareness of the influence of metanarratives of children and citizenship
on possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship is required to better understand how to
include young children as active citizens in the public sphere. Met anarratives of children as
developing, immanent, innocent, and dependent limited possibilities in this study. Evidence
generated in this study is applicable to others beside educators who may engage with young
children in the public sphere, such as public servants, members of parliament, and ministers.
Awareness of how the above views of children limit possibilities for young children‘s active
citizenship can provoke reflection on, and reconsideration of, policies and practices regarding
young children‘s pa rticipation in the public sphere. Increased awareness of the influence of
different perceptions of children may provoke social change that increases young children‘s
participation as active citizens in the public sphere.
8.2.2 Retribution, Rebellion, and R esponsibility Have a Place and Purpose in
Possibilities for Young Children’s Active Citizenship
Retribution, rebellion, and responsibility were found to have a place and purpose in young
children‘s active citizenship that was defined as young children init iating social actions to redress
injustices. Each of these themes w as motivated by affective responses to the social justice stories
told. Suggestions of retribution were punishment for the perpetrators of injustice. Ideas of
rebellion sought power for the oppressed. The expressions of responsibility to others sought to
remedy the loss and suffering for those who experienced injustice. Analysis of the place and
purpose of these themes contributed learning in possibilities for young children‘s active
citizen ship.
Recognition and inclusion of retribution, rebellion, and responsibility in young children‘s
active citizenship has particular implications for early childhood education. Space can be
provided for children to play out their suggestions of retribution , to express their affective

221 responses to social justice stories. By playing, drawing, dancing, building (and so on) their
suggestions of retributive actions, children can express the emotional intensity of their affective
responses. A forum could also be created to process young children‘s ideas and build
understandings of consequences of retributive actions through dialogue with others. Themes of
rebellion in children‘s suggestions to redress injustice can be recognised not just as defying
authority but a s a claim for power for the oppressed. Attention to these suggestions of rebellion
can cultivate explorations of acceptable ways to be powerful, such as expressing opinions,
initiating actions, and making decisions. How claims for power can be played out i n active
citizenship can be explored, for example, expressing opinion on an injustice to relevant
authorities. Teachers can also cultivate a classroom and school culture that welcomes young
children initiating and enacting responsibility to others. This re quires attention to young
children‘s ideas, and trust in their capacity and commitment to be responsible to others. Using
the ideas, thoughts, feelings, and opinions of children can help realise possibilities for young
children to be active citizens.
Reco gnition of retribution, rebellion, and responsibility as having a place and purpose in
young children‘s active citizenship has implications for citizenship, what it can and might be for
young children, and how young children might be included as citizens. Suggestions of retributive
actions provide evidence of children‘s passion to take action redress injustice. Ideas of rebellion
provide evidence of children being agentic, expressing opinions and taking control of their
actions. Retribution and rebellion de monstrate young children‘s interest in active citizenship.
Social actions that were initiated and enacted to show responsibility to others provide evidence of
young children‘s desire and capacity for active participation in communitarian citizenship.
Colle ctively, these examples offer insight for those who engage with young children in the public
sphere as to what young children‘s citizenship might be, defined by the ways that young children
choose to respond to injustices. It is hoped that acknowledgment o f the place and purpose of
retribution, rebellion, and responsibility in young children‘s active citizenship will lead to greater
inclusion of young children‘s interest and capacity to engage in communitarian citizenship. To
begin this process young childr en need to be included in dialogue on community issues, listened
to and the ways in which young children want to contribute supported.
8.2.3 Young Children Possess Complex Qualities as Active Citizens
The analysis of who nine young children might as citiz ens (Chapter 7) found that they possess
complex qualities as active citizens. These young children demonstrated qualities that are often
not associated with young children, such as compassion and autonomy. They chose to act and
speak in ways that they thou ght were valid to redress injustice. Analysis of actions initiated and
accompanying comments identified possible influences that shaped what the children did and
said. Different views and values shaped who each child was seen to be as an active citizen, su ch
as metanarratives of eye -for-an-eye logic and good citizenship, and values of equality, inclusion

222 and pragmatism. The differing complex qualities that young children portrayed as active citizens
revealed heterogeneity and fluidity in citizenship (Arvani takis, 2008). Recognition of
complexity, multip licity, heterogeneity and fluidity in who young children might be as active
citizens provides evidence of learning in possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship. The
children initiated social action s not just for the sake of it, but for equality, inclusion and
pragmatism.
Acknowledgment of the complex qualities that young children can portray as active
citizens has implications for early childhood education and citizenship. The multiplicity of
compl ex qualities that the selected young children portrayed is an invitation to practitioners who
work with young children to acknowledge the complexities of who young children can be as
active citizens in daily interactions. This acknowledgment can then fuel interactions with young
children as complex active citizens. Young children can be recognised as active contributors in
their learning communities and the public sphere.
Evidence of who young children can be as active citizens contributes rich
understan dings to the growing body of research on children‘s citizenship. These nine portraits of
young children as active citizens challenge closed, deficit definitions of young children as
irrational, impulsive, and pre -political. They acknowledge the sophisticat ion, heterogeneity and
fluidity of who young children can be as active citizens. It is hoped that this evidence improves
young children‘s status as active citizens and opens doors for greater possibilities for young
children‘s active citizenship participat ion.
8.2.4 Young Children’s Active Citizenship as Political and Authentically Agentic
Young children‘s active citizenship can be political, by young children initiating actions and
adults enabling these actions in the public sphere. Young children‘s active citizenship can be
authentically agentic if adults recognise how, when, and where young children choose to
exercise their agency to redress injustices and offer support at these moments. These
statements of explanation provide insight to the role of adult s in young children‘s active
citizenship. The following discussion explains these statements and their implications for
education and citizenship.
An interest in young children‘s active citizenship cultivated recognition of children as
political through p articipation in questioning normalised practices and taking action to redress
unjust practices in the public sphere. This followed the recommendation by Kulnych (2001) to
acknowledge that children can have political identities. Young children in the study came to be
known as political as a result of applying the definition of initiating action as an intentional act of
inserting both something new and oneself into the social world (e.g., the classroom, school, and
community) (Arendt, 1958/1998). The individu al takes a risk by beginning something new
amongst others, who may respond to the initiated action in unexpected and unpredictable ways.
For example, the act of making a list undertaken by Denmark and Declan‘s suggestion of fig tree

223 planting were recognise d as being political, as they involved starting something new in the public
sphere. Denmark and Declan‘s initiatives were responded to by the teacher and me in ways that
sustained the intent of their initiated actions (e.g., Denmark‘s list evolved into a p etition). Actions
taken up by others enabled agency of both the initiator and responder. This explains learning in
possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship as young children initiating actions and adults
responding by enabling these actions in the public sphere
This statement of explanation is particularly relevant to young children in
contemporary western nations where children have reduced access to social structures (Kulnych,
2001), are economically dependent (Lister, 2007), and endure a st rong emphasis on care and
protection in policy and practices (James et al., 2008). This context reduces young children‘s
capacity for active citizenship. Given the parameters of this social context, the possibility for
young children‘s active citizenship r equires that adults use their greater access to resources to
bring young children‘s initiatives on humanitarian issues into the public sphere.
A view of young children‘s active citizenship as authentically agentic acknowledges
how, when , and where young c hildren choose to exercise their agency to redress injustices , such
as the data examples in Chapter 7, which revealed young children expressing macabre and
creative ideas for retribution, rebellion against unfair authority, initiative in seeking others‘
opinions, and autonomy in completing social actions. In Chapter 6, reflection showed that at
times my attempts to support children‘s citizenship participation masked recognition and support
of children‘s self -initiated ways of being active citizens. Many mod els of children‘s citizenship,
such as those described in Chapter 2 , position adults as enablers of children‘s citizenship practice.
My experience in this study was that no matter what I did in my attempts to support children‘s
citizenship, for children to be authentically agentic as citizens it needed to come from them. In
this regard, children‘s citizenship can be viewed as pedocracy . In the context of young children‘s
active citizenship, I imagine pedocracy to be ways that children choose to be agentic , that is, to
act in the world with others .
Young children‘s active citizenship as authentically agentic embraces expressing
opinions and making decisions by children when they choose. Expressing opinions and making
decisions are und erstood as core democra tic acts in that all members of society have access to
power and enjoy universally recogni sed liberties and freedoms (Dahl et al., 2003) . Yet children
do not have the same access to the same control over their lives as adults, nor the same scope for
partic ipation in society. The story told by Molly, Ella, and Fergie was enacted in a place where
children rebelled against unfair authority and took control of their own actions. A view of young
children‘s active citizenship as authentically agentic acknowledges and appreciates the ways in
which children express agency. This view is not a suggestion of chaos and barbarism as depicted
in Lord of the Flies ; what William Golding imagined fitted with discourses that construct the
child as evil. Instead, a view of you ng children‘s active citizenship as authentically agentic is

224 more illustrative of viewing children as tribal, celebrating children‘s ways of being. This view
has potential to increase awareness of the scope and possibilities of children‘s agency with
matte rs that concern their lives. Although there are limitations in how young children can
exercise their agency given that they are economically dependent on adults and they require care
from adults to ensure their survival , consideration of children‘s citizen ship as authentically
agentic offers scope for greater awareness of emergent pedocratic acts . Opportunities for children
to express opinions and make decisions are further possibilities for young children‘s active
citizenship.
These explanations of young children‘s active citizenship as political and authentically
agentic provide suggestions for pedagogical practice for practitioners promoting young children‘s
active citizenship in early childhood education given young children‘s limited access to
resource s. Practitioners need to notice the social actions young children initiate; and how, when,
and where children choose to be agentic. Well -considered responses that sustain rather than
constrain agency are required, ensuring that subsequent actions engage ch ildren in decision –
making throughout the initiation, planning, and implementation of social actions. Practitioners
need to be alert to blocking or manipulating children‘s initiatives, as this limits the agency of both
parties.
A view of young children‘s active citizenship as political and authentically agentic sees
both children and adults experiment with co -existing in the political realm through interplays of
initiating and responding actions. Instead of idealising children‘s agency for the sake of
hono uring the child, attention is focused on the interplay of actions between young children and
adults learning together to activate real change as citizens. Such a view involves adults
acknowledging children‘s initiatives and responding to children‘s initiat ed actions with further
ideas to cultivate social actions that make a difference in the public sphere. By viewing young
children‘s active citizenship as political and authentically agentic, unpredictability, emergence,
and experimentation are embraced and concern for the other is always present. Two -way learning
is cultivated rather than solely supporting children‘s agency in an adult world, so adults also learn
to enter, understand , and acknowledge pedocracy in children‘s world/s. This reduces emphasis on
adults as ‗enablers‘ of children‘s agency and brings greater recognition of the complex and
diverse ways that children choose to exercise their agency. This requires adults to listen and
recognise the ways children exercise their agency, paying attention t o the purposes underpinning
the way children make and enact choices. These implications of viewing young children‘s active
citizenship as political and authentically agentic have great potential for child and adult
citizenship collaborations in early child hood education and beyond.

225 8.3 Limitations and Possibilities for Future Research
This study of one Prep class with social justice storytelling captured only a brief glimpse into
possibilities for social justice storytelling as pedagogy and young childre n‘s active citizenship. In
this regard it is limited in what can be claimed, yet the emergent understandings do indicate
possibilities for future studies on storytelling and young children‘s active citizenship, which
could include:
1. Comparative Studies Betw een Storytelling and Non -Narrative Provocations of Young
Children’s Active Citizenship. Understandings of the capacity for storytelling to arouse
sympathetic imagination and motivate action warrants further investigation. This study
investigated the capaci ty of storytelling to provoke young children‘s active citizenship.
A comparative analysis between storytelling and non -narrative strategies (e.g., through
discussing newspaper clippings and other relevant artefacts) would offer scope to more
adequately di stinguish the qualities of storytelling in relation to compassion and social
action.
2. Similar Studies in Other Socio -Cultural Contexts . The study was limited in that it
involved one class of children from one socio -cultural context. Studies of young
childre n‘s participation in social justice storytelling as pedagogy within other socio –
cultural contexts would provide scope for comparison and further investigation of
emergent themes between storytelling and young children‘s active citizenship. Similar
studies in other socio -cultural contexts would enable recognition of commonalities and
differences as well as identify the influence of differing socio -cultural contexts.
3. Studies on Children’s Engagement in Active Citizenship with All Members of an
Educational C ommunity . As the study involved one class, the scope for social action was
limited. Studies with a whole educational community (e.g., a school) would provide
greater scope for social change within the school and the community. Timetabling
restraints and st andardi sed curriculum requirements were identified as limiting the
breadth of possibilities for children‘s engagement in active citizenship. If a similar study
was supported and undertaken with a whole educational community , such as a school,
kindergarten , or childcare centre there would then be potential to alter timetabling and
curriculum requirements to allow for flexibility to support the emergent directions of the
study.
4. Longitudinal Studies on Children’s Engagement in Active Citizenship . Data collecti on of
this study tracked one Prep class across thirteen weeks. This reduced potential for
children‘s active citizenship in ongoing communitarian projects. A longitudinal study
would be able to track growth in the children‘s understandings of social justice issues
and what they might demand . Monitoring children‘s citizenship participation across a
longer period of time could provide space for greater self -authoring of young children‘s

226 acts of citizenship through involvement in ongoing communitarian projects. In addition,
interviews with the children sometime after active participation in a study (e.g., six
months to a year) would offer understandings of the lasting impressions, dispositions,
and attitudes that participation in communitarian projects may leave with young
children.
8.4 Closing Reflections
After spending two school terms together, life for the children, teacher, and me has taken
different directions, and so I imagine, have our thoughts of the experiences we shared together.
However, just like a story, I have had to purposefully craft an end, as I did a beginning. The idea
of storytelling provoking young children‘s active citizenship was what determined the beginning
of this study. Research into social justice storytelling and young children‘s act ive citizenship
involved evolving processes of creation that formed living theories of social justice storytelling as
pedagogy and possibilities for young children‘s active citizenship. Though these living theories
are defined and documented in this thesis , they are beginnings of further possibilities for
storytelling and young children‘s active citizenship rather than endings. These beginnings
suggest that pedagogical practices of social justice storytelling include attentive and responsive
listening, conn ectivity, and the cultivation of voice, empathy and compassion as a means to
promote active citizenship, through dramatic endeavours to make the story the experience of the
listener. Stories of what young children were motivated to do as active citizens we re told,
recognising the influence of metanarratives, themes of retribution, rebellion and responsibility,
the complexity of their citizenship practices, and that young children‘s active citizenship can be
political. These are my readings as an adult. It i s hoped that further ideas and possibilities emerge
for young children‘s active citizenship as young children and adults continue to explore and
experiment with political coexistence.

227 REFERENCES
Abbs, P. (1989). A is for aesthetic: Essays on creative and aesthetic education . Sussex: The
Falmer Press.
Ailwood, J. (2003). Governing early childhood education through play. Contemporary Issues
in Early Childhood, 4 (3), 286 -299.
Alderson, P. (1994). Researching children's rights to integrity. In B. Myall (Ed .), Children's
childhoods observed and experienced (pp. 45 -62). London: The Falmer Press.
Alderson, P. (2008a). Children as researchers: Participation rights and research. In P.
Christensen & A. James (Eds.), Research with children: Perspectives and practi ces
(2nd ed., pp. 276 -290). Abingdon, OX: Routledge.
Alderson, P. (2008b). When does citizenship begin? Economics and early childhood. In A.
Invernizzi & J. Williams (Eds.), Children and citizenship (pp. 108 -119). London:
Sage Publications Ltd.
Alderson, P . (2008c). Young children's rights: Exploring beliefs principles and practice (2nd
ed.). London, UK: Kingsley Publishers.
Archard, D. (1993). Children rights and childhood . London: Routledge.
Arendt, H. (1958/1998). The human condition (2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
Arendt, H. (1970). Men in dark times . London: Cape.
Arendt, H. (1977). Between past and future: Eight exercises in political thought .
Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Aries, P. (1962). Centuries of childhood . London: Jonathan Cape.
Arneil, B. (2002). Becoming versus being: A critical analysis of the child in liberal theory. In
D. Archard & C. M. McLeod (Eds.), The moral and political status of children (pp.
70-96). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Arvanitakis, J. (2008). The he terogeneous citizen: How many of us care about Don
Bradman‘s average? [Electronic Version]. MC Journal , 11. Retrieved March 15,
2009, from
http://journal.media -culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/viewArticle/27 .
Asch, T. (1992). The ethics of ethn ographic filmmaking. In P. I. Crawford & D. Turton
(Eds.), Film as ethnography (pp. 196 -204). Manchester, UK: Manchester University
Press.
Atweh, B., Kemmis, S., & Weeks, P. (1998). Action research in practice: Partnership for
social justice in education . London: Routledge.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2007a). 2006 Census community profile series: Brisbane
(major statistical region) basic community profile . Retrieved June 11, 2009, from
http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/ABSNavigation/prenav/ViewData?&ac tion=404
&documentproductno=31&documenttype=Details&tabname=Details&areacode=31
&issue=2006&producttype=Community%20Profiles&&producttype=Community%
20Profiles&javascript=true&textversion=false&navmapdisplayed=true&breadcrumb
=PLD&&collection=Census&period=200 6&producttype=Community%20Profiles&
#Basic%20Community%20Profile .
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2007b). 2006 Census community profile series: Clayfield
(Brisbane City) (state suburb) basic community profile . Retrieved June 11, 2009,
from
http://www.cens usdata.abs.gov.au/ABSNavigation/prenav/ViewData?&action=404
&documentproductno=SSC31143&documenttype=Details&tabname=Details&areac
ode=SSC31143&issue=2006&producttype=Community%20Profiles&&producttype
=Community%20Profiles&javascript=true&textversion=false&na vmapdisplayed=tr
ue&breadcrumb=PLD&&collection=Census&period=2006&producttype=Communi
ty%20Profiles&#Basic%20Community%20Profile .
Australian Capital Territory Government. (2004). The ACT Children's plan 2004 -2014 .
Retrieved May 16, 2009, from www.children.act.gov.au/pdf/childrensplan.pdf .

228 Barilli, R. (1993). A course on aesthetics (K. Pinkus, Trans.). Minneapolis, MN: University
of Minnesota Press.
Barnes, T. (1987). Homo economicus, physical metaphors, and universal models in
economic -geography. Canadian Geographer, 31 (4), 299 -308.
Barnes, T. (1988). Rationality and relativism in economic -geography: An interpretative
review of the home econom icus assumption. Progress in Human Geography, 12 (4),
473-496.
Barrie, J. M. (1911). Peter Pan and Wendy . London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Barton, B., & Booth, D. (1990). Stories in the classroom: Storytelling, reading aloud and
role-playing with children . Ports mouth, NH: Heinemann.
Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind . New York: Dutton.
Batstone, D., & Mendieta, E. (1999). What does it mean to be an American? In D. Batstone
& E. Mendieta (Eds.), The good citizen (pp. 1 -4). New York: Routledge.
Beal, C . R., Garrod, A., Ruben, K., Stewart, T., & Dekle, D. (1997). Children‘s moral
orientation: Does the gender of dilemma character make a difference? Journal of
Moral Education, 26 , 45–58.
Bell, L. (2009). The story of the storytelling project: An arts -based race and social justice
curriculum. Storytelling, Self, Society, 5 (2), 107 -118.
Bell, L. (2010). Storytelling for social justice: Connecting narrative and arts in anti -racist
teaching . New York: Routledge.
Benhabib, S. (1986). The generalised and the conc rete other: The Kohlberg -Gilligan
controversy and feminist theory. Praxis International, 5 , 402 -424.
Benhabib, S. (1992). Situating the self: Gender, community and postmodernism in
contemporary ethics . Cambridge: Polity Press.
Benjamin, W. (1955/199). Illuminations (H. Zorn. Trans.). London: Pimlico.
Berthelsen, D. (2008). Participatory learning: Issues for research and practice. In D.
Berthelsen, J. Brownlee & E. Johansson (Eds.), Participatory learning in the early
years (pp. 1 -11). New York: Routledge.
Biesta, G. (2007). Education and the democratic person: Towards a political conception of
democratic education [Electronic Version]. Teachers College Record , 109, 740 -769.
Retrieved March 29, 2009, from http://www.tcrecord.org
Biesta, G. (2010). How to exi st politically and learn from it: Hannah Arendt and the problem
of democratic education [Electronic Version]. Teachers College Record , 112 9-10.
Retrieved August 28, 2009, from
http://www.t crecord.org/content.asp?contentid=15744 .
Birbeck, D.J., & Drummond, M.J.N. (2007). Research with children: Contemplating
methods and ethics. Journal of Education Enquiry , 7(2), 21 -31.
Black, J. (2005). Fighting for the soul. In M. C. Powell & V. M. Speise r (Eds.), The arts,
education, and social change: Little signs of hope (pp. 75 -86). New York: Peter
Lang.
Bodrova, E., & Leong, D. J. (1996). Tools of the mind: The Vygotskian approach to early
childhood education . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merill.
Boone, M. ( 2005). Experiential storytelling in elementary classrooms: A narrative
approach . Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto, Toronto,
Canada.
Booth, W. (1988). The company we keep: An ethics of fiction . Berkeley: University of
California Pres s.
Bowes, J. (2007). Australia: Pedagogies in early childhood education In R. New & C.
Mocrieff (Eds.), Early childhood education international encyclopaedia (Vol. 4, pp.
883-887). Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing.
Branigan, E. (2003). But how can you pr ove it? Issues of rigour in action research. Journal
of HEIA, 10(3), 37 -38.
Bredekamp, S. (Ed.). (1987). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood
programs serving children from birth through age 8 . Washington, DC: NAEYC.

229 Bredekamp, S., & Co pple, C. (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice in early
childhood programs . Washington, DC: NAEYC.
Britsch, S. (1992). The development of story within the culture of preschool . Unpublished
Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, U SA.
Brooker, L. (2002). Starting school – young children learning cultures . Buckingham: Open
University Press.
Broström, S. (2002). Children tell stories. European Early Childhood Education Research
Journal, 10 (1), 85 -97.
Brother Wolf. (2008). La'Ron Will iams on supporting peace and social justice through
storytelling. The art of storytelling show: An international conversation of
storytellers on the art of storytelling . Retrieved November, 9, 2009, from
http://www.artofstorytellingshow.com/tag/social -justice/
Brown, B. (1998). Unlearning discrimination in the early years . Stoke on Trent,
Staffordshire: Trentham Books.
Brown, B. (2001). Combating discrimination: Persona dolls in action . Stoke on Trent,
Staffordshire: Trentham Books.
Brown, T., & Jones, L. ( 2001). Action research and postmodernism: Congruence and
critique . Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Brownlee, J., Ailwood, J., Walker, S., Boulton -Lewis, G., Johansson, E., Cobb, C., et al.
(2009). Learning about social and moral values for citizensh ip: Educational policy
and practice in early education . Unpublished ARC Project. Queensland University
of Technology.
Brubacher, J. S. (1966). A history of the problems of education . New York: McGraw -Hill.
Bruner, J. (1986). Actual minds, possible worlds . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bruner, J. (2003). Self -making narratives. In R. Fivusch & C. A. Haden (Eds.),
Autobiographical memory and construction of a narrative self: Developmental and
cultural perspectives (pp. 209 -225). Mahwah, NJ.: Lawrence Erlbraum Associates.
Buber, M. (1937). I and thou (R.G.Smith, Trans.). Edinburgh: Clark.
Caduto, M. J., & Bruchac, J. (1997). Keepers of the earth: Native American stories and
environmental activities for children . Colorado: Fulcrum Publishing.
Cadwell, L ., & Rinaldi, C. (2003). Bringing learning to life . New York: Teachers College
Press.
Cannella, G.S. (1997). Deconstructing early childhood education: Social justice and
revolution. New York: Peter Lang.
Cannella, G. S., & Viruru, R. (2004). Childhood and postcolonis ation: Power, education and
contemporary practice . New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
Carr, D. (1991). Educating the virtues . London: Routledge.
Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge, and action
research . London: Falmer Press.
Carter, M., & Curtis, D. (2000). The art of awareness: How observation can transform your
teaching . St. Paul, MN.: Redleaf Press.
Ceppi, G., & Zini, M. (Eds.). (1998). Children, spaces, relations: Metaproject for an
environment for young children . Reggio Emilia, Italy: Reggio Children.
Cheeseman, S., & Robertson, J. (2006). Unsure: Private conversations publicly recorded. In
A. Fleet, C. Patterson & J. Robertson (Eds.), Insights: Behind early childhood
pedagogical documentation (pp. 191 -204). Sydney: Pademelon Press.
Christensen, P., & James, A. (2008). Introduction: Researching children and childhood
cultures of communication. In P. Christensen & A. James (Eds.), Research with
children: Perspectives and practices (2nd ed., pp. 1 -9). London: Routledge .
Chomsky, N. (1986). Knowledge of language: Its nature, origin and use . New York:
Praeger.
Chomsky, N. (2006). Failed states: The abuse of power and the assault on democracy .
London: Hamish Hamilton.

230 Coady, M. (1996). Reflections on children's rights. In K. Funder (Ed.), Citizen child:
Australian law and children's rights (pp. 11 -32). Melbourne: Australian Institute of
Family Studies.
Coady, M. (2008). Beings and becomings: Historical and philosophical considerations of the
child as citizen. In G. MacNaugh ton, P. Hughes & K. Smith (Eds.), Young children
as active citizens (pp. 2 -14). Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Cockburn, T. (1998). Children and citizenship in Britain: A case for a socially
interdependent model of citizenship. Childhood, 5 (1), 99-117.
Cohen, A. (1994). The gate of light: Janusz Korczak, the educator and writer who overcame
the Holocaust . Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.
Coghlan, D., & Brannick, T. (2004). Doing action research in your own organization (2nd
ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Commonwealth of Australia. (2009). Belonging, being and becoming: The early years
learning framework for Australia . Retrieved July 31, 2009, from
http://www.deewr.gov.au/EarlyChildhood/Policy_Agenda/Quality/Documents/Final
%20E YLF%20Framework%20Report%20 -%20WEB.pdf .
Connell, R. W. (1971). The child's construction of politics . Melbourne: Melbourne
University Press.
Connolly, P. (1998). Racism, gender identities and young children: Social relations in a
multi -ethnic inner -city pri mary school . London: Routledge.
Cooper, P. J., Collins, R., & Saxby, M. (1994). The Power of Story . Melbourne: MacMillan.
Cooper, P. M. (2005). Literary learning and pedagogical purpose in Vivian Paley's
storytelling curriculum. Journal of Early Childhood Literacy, 5 (3), 229 -250.
Copple, C., & Bredekamp, S. (Eds.). (2009). Developmentally appropriate practice in early
childhood programs: Serving children from birth through age 8 (3rd ed.).
Washington, DC National Association for the Education of Young Child ren.
Corsaro, W. (2005). The sociology of childhood (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge
Press.
Cowhey, M. ( 2006). Black ants and Buddhists: Thinking critically and teaching differently
in the primary grades . Portland, ME: Stenhouse Publishers.
Creswe ll, J. W. (2005). Education Research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating
quantitative and qualitative research (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson
Education Inc.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
appr oaches (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Crofts, A. (2006). The little hero: One boy's fight for freedom – Iqbal Masih's story . Chicago,
IL: Independent Publishers Group.
Dadds, M., & Hart, S. (2001). Doing practitioner research differently . London: Routledge
Falmer.
Dagger, R. (1997). Rights, citizenship, and republican liberalism . Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
Dahl, R. (2000). On democracy . New Haven: Yale University Press.
Dahl, R., Shapiro, I., & Cheibub, J. A. (2003). The democrac y sourcebook . Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Dahlberg, G., Moss, P., & Pence, A. (1999). Beyond quality in early childhood education
and care: Post -modern perspectives . London: Falmer Press.
Dailey, S. (Ed.). (1994). Tales as tools: The power of story in the cl assroom . Jonesborough,
Tennessee: National Storytelling Press.
Davies, B. (1991). Friends and fights. In M. Woodhead, P. Light & R. Carr (Eds.), Growing
up in a changing society (pp. 243 -265). London: Routledge.
Davies, B. (2003). Frogs and snails and femi nist tales: Preschool children and gender
(revised ed.). Cresskill, N.J: Hampton Press Inc.
Delanty, G. (2002). Communitarianism and citizenship. In E. F. Isin & B. Turner (Eds.),
Handbook of citizenship studies (pp. 161 -174). London: Sage Publications Ltd .
DeMause, L. (1976). The history of childhood . London: Souvenir Press.

231 Derman -Sparks, L., Ramsey, P. G., & Edwards, J. O. (2006). What if all the kids are white?:
Anti-bias multicultural education with young children and families . New York:
Teachers Colle ge Press.
Derman -Sparks, L., & The Anti -bias Task Force. (1989). Anti-bias curriculum: Tools for
empowering young children . Washington: NAEYC.
Dewey, J. (1902, 1899/1956). The child and the curriculum; and the school and society .
Chicago: Chicago Universit y Press.
Dewey, J. (1916). Democracy and education . New York: The Macmillan Company.
Dewey, J. (1934). Art as experience . New York: Capricorn Books.
Dewey, J. (1938/1998). Experience and education: The 60th anniversary edition .
Indianapolis, Indiana: Kappa Delta.
DeWinter, M. (1997). Children as fellow citizens participation and commitment . Abingdon:
Radcliffe Medical Press.
Diaz, G. (2004). Experiencing the moment. In G. Diaz & B.M. McKenna (Eds.), Teaching
for aesthetic experience: The art of learning (pp.85-99). New York: Peter Lang
Publishing.
Dick, B. (1993). You want to do an action research thesis? Retrieved June 11, 2009, from
http://www.scu.edu.au/schools/gcm/ar/art/arthesis.html
Dick, B. (1999). Sources of rigour in action research: Addressing th e issues of
trustworthiness and credibility . Paper presented at the Association for Qualitative
Research Conference ―Issues of rigour in qualitative research‖. Retrieved June 11,
2009 from http://www.latrobe.edu.au/agr/offer/papers/BDick.htm
Dick, B. (2000 ). A beginner's guide to action research. Retrieved January 13, 2007, from
http://www.uq.net.au/action_research/arp/guide.html
Dr. Seuss. (1972). The Lorax . London: Collins.
DuFon, M. (2002). Video recording in ethnographic SLA research: Some issues of v alidity
in data collection. Language Learning & Technology, 6 (1), 40 -59.
Dyson, A. H. (1997). Writing superheroes: Contemporary childhood, popular culture, and
classroom literacy . New York: Teachers College Press.
Dyson, A. H., & Genishi, C. (1994). Introd uction: The need for story. In A. H. Dyson & C.
Genishi (Eds.), The need for story: Cultural diversity in classroom and community
(pp. 1 -7). Urbana, Ill National Council of Teachers of English.
Eden, K., & Roker, D. (2002). Doing something: Young people as social actors . Leicester:
The Nation Youth Work Agency.
Edwards, C., Gandini, L., & Forman, G. (1993). The hundred languages of children: The
Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood education Norwood, N.J Ablex Pub.
Corp.
Edwards, C., Gandini, L., & Fo rman, G. (1998). The hundred languages of children: The
Reggio Emilia approach –advanced reflections . Greenwich, Conn.: Ablex Pub.
Corp.
Egan, K. (1986). Teaching as storytelling: An alternative approach to teaching and
curriculum in the elementary school . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Egan, K. (1997). The educated mind: How cognitive tools shape our understanding .
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Egan, K. (2005). An imaginative approach to teaching . San Francisco, CA: Jossey -Bass.
Estes, C. P. (1992). Women who run with the wolves: Contacting the power of the wild
woman . London: Rider.
Etzioni, A. (1993). The spirit of community: Rights, responsibilities, and the communitarian
agenda . New York: Crown.
Faulks, K. (1998). Citizenship in modern Br itain. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Feldman, A. (2007). Validity and quality in action research. Educational Action Research,
15(1), 21 -32.
Fisher, W. R. (1987). Human communication as narration . Columbia: University of South
Carolina Press.

232 Fleer, M. (2006). The cultural construction of child development: Creating and institutional
intersubjectivity. International Journal of Early Years Education, 14 (2), 127 -140.
Fontana, A., & Frey, J. (2003). The interview: From structured questions to negotiat ed text.
In N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials
(2nd ed., pp. 61 -106). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Fontana, A., & Frey, J. (2005). The interview: From neutral stance to political involvement.
In N. Den zin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd
ed., pp. 695 -727). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Foucault, M. (1977a). Discipline and punish . London: Penguin.
Foucault, M. (1977b). Truth and power. In C. Gordon (Ed.), Power/ Knowledge: Selected
interviews and other writings 1972 -1977 by Michel Foucault (pp. 109 -133). Sussex:
Harvester Press.
Fox, C. (1997). Children‘s conceptions of imaginative revealed in their oral stories. In
N.Hall & J. Martello (Eds.), Listening to childr en think: Exploring talk in the early
years (pp.54 -63). London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Fox, C. (1998). Serious play the relationship between young children‘s oral stories and their
learning. Current Psychology of Cognition , 17(2), 211 -228.
Franklin, B. (1995) . The case for children's rights: A progress report. In B. Franklin (Ed.),
The handbook of children's rights (pp. 3 -22). London: Routledge.
Free the Children. (2007). History. Retrieved September 1, 2007, from
http://www.freethechildren.com/aboutus/ftchist ory.php
Freeman, M. (Ed.). (1996). Children's rights: A comparative perspective . Brookfield, VT.:
Dartmouth.
Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M. Bergman Ramos, Trans.). New York:
Seabury Press.
Freire, P. (1973). Education as the practice of f reedom in education for critical
consciousness (M. Bergman Ramos, Trans.) . New York: Continuum.
Freire, P. (1974). Education for critical consciousness . London: Sheed & Ward.
Freire, P. (1985). Politics of education: Culture, power and liberation (D. P. M acedo,
Trans.). Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey Publishers Inc.
Freire, P. (1998). Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy and civic courage (P. Clarke,
Trans.). Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield.
Freud, S. (1923). The ego and the id . New York: W.W. Nort on & Company.
Froebel, F. (1887). The education of man (M. W. Hailman, Trans.). New York: D. Appleton
Company.
Gallacher, L., & Gallagher, M. (2008). Methodological immaturity in childhood research?:
Thinking through `participatory methods'. Childhood, 15 (4), 499 -516.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. London:
Heinemann.
Garrod, A., Beal, C. R., & Shin, P. (1990). The development of moral orientation in
elementary children. Sex roles, 22 , 13-27.
Gilbert, P. (1994). "An d they lived happily ever after": Cultural storylines and the
construction of gender. In A. Dyson & C. Genishi (Eds.), The need for story:
Cultural diversity in classroom and community (pp. 124 -142). Urbana, Ill: National
Council of Teachers of English.
Gilbert, R. (1996). Education for active and informed citizenship. In R. Gilbert (Ed.),
Studying society and environment: A handbook for teachers . Melbourne: MacMillan.
Giroux, H. (1983). Theory and resistance in education: A pedagogy for the opposition .
Massachusetts: Bergin & Garvey.
Giroux, H. (1988). Schooling and the struggle for public life: Critical pedagogy in the
modern age . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Giroux, H. (2003). The abandoned generation: Democracy beyond the culture of fear . New
York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Golding, W. (1954). The lord of the flies . London: Faber.

233 Goldman -Segall, R. (1998). Points of viewing children's thinking . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination: Ess ays on education, the arts, and social
change. San Francisco: Jossey -Bass.
Greene, M. (2004). Carpe diem: The arts and school structuring. In G. Diaz & M. B.
McKenna (Eds.), Teaching for aesthetic experience: The art of learning (pp. 17 -31).
New York: Pete r Lang Publishing Inc.
Groce, R.W. (2001). An experimental study of elementary teachers with the storytelling
process . Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University, Texas, USA.
Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). Paradigmatic controversies, co ntradictions, and
emerging confluences. In N. Denzin, K. & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of
qualitative research (3rd ed., pp. 191 -216). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Gullestad, M. (1997). A passion for boundaries: Reflections on connections between the
everyday lives of children and discourses on the nation in contemporary Norway.
Childhood, 4 (1), 19 –42.
Haase, D. (2008). The Greenwood encyclopaedia of folktales and fairytales . Westport, CT:
Greenwood Publishing Group.
Habermas, J. (1974). Theory and practice . London: Heinemann Educational Books.
Hall, K. J., & Lucal, B. (1999). Tapping into parallel universes: Using superhero comic
books in sociology courses. Teaching sociology, 27 (1), 60 -66.
Halstead, J. M., & Pike, M. A. (2006). Citizenshi p and moral education: Values in action .
Abingdon, OX: Routledge.
Hamilton, M., & Weiss, M. (1990). Children tell stories: A teaching guide . Katonah, NY:
Richard C. Owen Publishers Inc.
Hard, L. (2005). Would the leaders in early childhood education and ca re please step
forward? . Journal of Australian Research in Early Childhood Education, 12 , 51-61.
Hart, R. (1997). Children's participation: The theory and practice of involving young citizens
in community development and environmental care . London: Earths can Publications.
Hartley, B. (1996). The freedom bird. In N. Livo (Ed.), Joining in: An anthology of audience
participation stories & how to tell them (pp. 19 -22). Cambridge, MA: Yellow Moon
Press.
Hawkins, D. (1966). Learning the unteachable. In L. Shulm an & E. Keislar (Eds.), Learning
by discovery: A critical appraisal (pp. 3 -12). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Hawkins, K. (2008). Preschoolers' awareness of, and sensitivities to, social justice issues:
Children's literature and participatory action research. Australian Research in Early
Childhood Education, 15 (1), 69 -81.
Heath, S.B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities and
classrooms . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Hess, R. D., & Torney, J. V. (2006). The development of pol itical attitudes in children .
Edison, NJ.: Transaction publishers.
Hobbes, T. (1660/ 1996). The leviathan . New York: Oxford University Press.
Honohan, I. (2002). Civic republicanism . London: Routledge.
Hoy, D. C., & McCarthy, T. (1994). Critical theory . Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission. (1997). Bringing them home: Report of
the national inquiry into the separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children from their families . Retrieved July 7 , 2008, f rom
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AILR/1997/36.html .
Isin, E., & Turner, B. (2002). Citizenship studies: An introduction. In E. Isin & B. Turner
(Eds.), Handbook of citizenship studies (pp. 1 -10). London: Sage.
Jacobs Sife, D. (2007). The king and the fisherman. Retrieved June 6, 2007, from
http://www.donnajacobsife.com
Jaffe, N. (2000). Bringing storytelling and folk narrative into classroom life. In N. Nager &
E. K. Shapiro (Eds.), Revisiting a progressive pedagogy: The developmental –
interaction a pproach (pp. 161 -178). New York: State University of New York Press.
James, A., Jencks, C., & Prout, A. (1998). Theoris ing childhood . Oxford: Polity Press.

234 James, A., Curtis, P., & Birch, J. (2008). Care and control in the construction of children's
citize nship. In A. Invernizzi & J. Williams (Eds.), Children and citizenship (pp. 85 –
96). London: Sage Publications Ltd.
James, A., & Prout, A. (1995). Heirarchy, boundary and agency: Toward a theoretical
perspective in childhood. Sociological studies of childho od, 7 , 77-101.
Janoski, T. (1998). Citizenship and civil society: A framework of rights and obligations in
liberal, traditional and social democratic regimes . Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Jans, M. (2004). Children as citizens: Towards a contempor ary notion of child participation.
Childhood, 11 (1), 27 -44.
Jenks, C. (Ed.). (1982). Sociology of childhood: Essential readings . London: Blatsford.
Jennings, C. (1991). Children as storytellers: Developing language skills in the classroom .
Melbourne: Oxfor d University Press.
Jones, E., & Nimmo, J. (1994). Emergent curriculum . Washington, DC: NAEYC.
Josephs, C. (2005). Sacred storytelling invokes limen in the transformation of reality.
Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, University of Western Sydney, Sydney.
Kant, I. (1784/1992). An answer to the question: What is enlightement? In P. Waugh (Ed.),
Postmodernism: A reader (pp. 89 -95). London: Edward Arnold.
Kaomea, J. (2000). Pointed noses and yellow hair: Deconstructing children's writing on race
and ethnicity in Hawaii. In J. Jipson & R. Johnson (Eds.), Identity and
representation in early childhood education (pp. 151 -181). New York: Peter Lang.
Kaomea, J. (2003). Reading erasures and making the familiar strange: Defamiliarizing
methods for research in formerl y colonis ed and historically oppressed communities.
Educational researcher, 32 (2), 14 -25.
Kessler, S., & Hauser, M. (2000). Critical pedagogy and the politics of play. In L. D. Soto
(Ed.), The politics of early childhood education (pp. 59 -71). New York: Pe ter Lang.
Kielburger, C. (1998). Free the Children: A young man fights against child labour and
proves that children can change the world . New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
Kilderry, A. (2004). Critical pedagogy: A useful framework for thinking about ea rly
childhood curriculum. Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 29 (4), 33 -37.
Kinney, L., & Wharton, P. (2006). An encounter with Reggio Emilia: Children's early
learning made visible . Abingdon, OX: Routledge.
Kjorholt, A. T. (1998). Children as active ci tizens: Perspectives on Norwegian Child Policy
and the implementation on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child . Paper
presented at the Conference: Children‘s Rights and Wrongs 5 –6 November 1998.
Kjorholt, A. T. (2002). Small is powerful: Discourses on 'children and participation' in
Norway. Childhood, 9 (1), 63 -82.
Korczak, J. (1923/1986). King Matt, the first (R. Lourie, Trans.). New York: Farrar, Straus &
Giroux.
Kramsch, C. (1998). Language and culture . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kristeva, J. (2001). Hannah Arendt: Life is a narrative (R. Guberman, Trans.). New York:
Columbia University Press.
Kulnych, J. (2001). No playing the public sphere: Democratic theory and the exclusion of
children. Social theory and practice, 27 (2), 231 -265.
Kuyvenhov en, J. C. (2005). In the presence of each other: A pedagogy of storytelling.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of British Columbia, Canada .
Kymlicka, W. (1989). Liberal individualism and liberal neutrality. Ethics, 99 (4), 883 -905.
Kymlicka, W., & Norman, W. (1994). Return of the citizen: A survey of recent work on
citizenship theory. Ethics, 104 (2), 352 -381.
Lankshear, C., & Peters, M. (1996). Postmodern counternarratives. In H. Giroux, C.
Lankshear, P. McLaren & M. Peters (Eds.), Counternar ratives: Cultural studies and
critical pedagogies in postmodern spaces (pp. 1 -40). New York: Routledge.
Lansdown, G. (1994). Children's rights. In B. Myall (Ed.), Children's childhoods observed
and experienced (pp. 33 -44). London: The Falmer Press.

235 Lansdow n, G. (2001). Promoting children's participation in democratic decision -making .
Florence, Italy: Innocenti UNICEF.
Lansdown, G. (2005). Innocenti insight: The evolving capacities of the child . Florence:
UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.
Lifton, B. J. (1988 ). The king of children: A biography of Janusz Korczak . New York: Farrar
Straus & Giroux.
Light, D. (2008, Apr – Jun). Hip hop: The rabbit is back. Australian Geographic, 90, 114-
119.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry . Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications.
Lipman, M. (1988). Philosophy Goes to School . Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Lister, R. (2007). Why citizenship: Where, when and how children? Theoretical inquiries in
Law, 8 (2), 693 -718.
Lister, R. (2008). Unpacking children 's citizenship. In A. Invernizzi & J. Williams (Eds.),
Children and citizenship (pp. 9 -19). London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Livo, N. (Ed.). (1988). Joining in: An anthology of audience participation stories & how to
tell them . compiled by Teresa Miller with assistance from Anne Pellowski.
Cambridge, MA: Yellow Moon Press.
Locke, J. (1690). Two treatises of government . Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publishing.
Locke, J. (1690/1959). An essay concerning human understanding . New York: Dover
Publications.
Loenen, N . (1997). Citizenship and democracy . Toronto: Dundurn Press.
Lubeck, S. (1998). Is developmentally appropriate practice for everyone? Childhood
Education, 74 (5), 283 -292.
Lukacs, G. (1920/1967). History and class consciousness (R. Livingstone, Trans.). Lon don:
Merlin Press.
Luke, C. (1989). Pedagogy, printing and protestantism . Albany, NY: State University of
New York Press.
Lyotard, J.F. (1984). The post modern condition: A report on knowledge (G. Bennington &
B. Massumi Trans.). Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
MacDonald, M. R. (1982). The storyteller's sourcebook: A subject, title, and motif index to
children's folklore collections . Detroit, MI: Neal -Schuman Publishers in Association
with Gale.
Macedo, D. (2000). Introduction. In P. Freire (Ed .), Pedagogy of the oppressed: 30th
Anniversary edition (pp. 11 -28). New York: Continuum International Publishing
Group.
MacNaughton, G. (2005). Doing Foucault in early childhood studies . Abingdon, OX:
Routledge.
MacNaughton, G., & Davis, K. (2001). Beyond ‗othering‘: Rethinking approaches to
teaching young Anglo -Australian children about Indigenous Australians.
Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 2 (1), 83 -93.
MacNaughton, G., & Smith, K. (2005). Transforming research ethics: The choices and
challenges of researching with children. In A. Farrell (Ed.), Ethical research with
children. Maidenhead, Berkshire: Open University Press, pp. 1 12-123.
MacNaughton, G., Hughes, P., & Smith, K. (Eds.). (2008). Young children as active citizens:
Principles, policies a nd pedagogies . Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholars
Publishing.
MacNaughton, G., & Smith, K. (2008). Engaging ethically with young children: Principles
and practices for consulting justly with care. In G. MacNaughton, P. Hughes & K.
Smith (Eds.), Young childr en as active citizens (pp. 31 -43). Newcastle, UK:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
MacNaughton, G., & Hughes, P. (2009). Doing action research in early childhood studies: A
step by step guide . Berkshire, England: Open University Press.

236 MacNaughton, G., & Wil liams, G. (2009). Techniques for teaching young children: Choices
for theory and practice (3rd ed.) . Frenchs Forest, NSW: Pearson Education
Australia.
Malaguzzi, L. (1993). History, ideas and basic philosophy: An interview with Lella Gandini.
In C. Edwards , L. Gandini & G. Forman (Eds.), The hundred languages of children:
The Reggio Emilia approach to early childhood education (pp. 49 -98). Norwood,
NJ: Ablex Publishing.
Mallan, K. (1991). Children as storytellers . Newtown, NSW: PETA.
Mallan, K. (2003). Performing bodies: Narrative, representation, and children's storytelling .
Flaxton: Post Pressed.
Manifold, M. C. (2007). The healing picture book: An aesthetic of sorrow. Teacher
Librarian, 34 (3), 20 -26.
Marcuse, H. (1964). One dimensional man . Boston: Beacon Press.
Marcuse, H. (1978). The aesthetic dimension: Toward a critique of Marxist aesthetics (E.
Sherover, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Books.
Marsden, J., & Tan, S. (1998). The rabbits . Port Melbourne, Vic.: Lothian Books.
Marshall, K. (1997). Children's right s in the balance: The participation -protection debate .
Edindurgh: The Stationery Office.
Marshall, T. H. (1950). Citizenship and social class . Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Maynor, J. W. (2003). Republicanism in the modern world . Cambridge, MA: Po lity Press.
McKay, H., & Dudley, B. (1996). A practical guide about storytelling . Sydney: Hale &
Iremonger.
McNiff, J. (2007). My story is my living educational theory. In D. J. Clandinin (Ed.),
Handbook of narrative inquiry: Mapping an ideology (pp. 308 -329). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Md Nor, M. (2005). Persona dolls: Lawful or prohibited. CEIEC Members Issues Paper
(3.4).
Mello, R. A. (1999). Narrating gender: Children's responses to gender roles depicted in
orally told folk tales and other traditional sto ries. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Lesley University, Massachusetts.
Millei, Z., & Imre, R. (2009). The problems with using the concept 'citizenship' in early
years policy. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 10 (3), 280 -290.
Mills, J. (1869/1999) . On liberty . New York: Bartleby.
Minow, M. (1999). Choice or commonality: Welfare and schooling after the end of welfare.
Duke Law Journal, 49 (2), 493 -559.
Mishler, E. (1995). Models of narrative analysis: A typology. Journal of Narrative and Life
History , 5(2), 87 -123.
Morrow, V. (1994). Responsible children? Aspects of children's work and employment
outside school in contemporary UK. In B. Myall (Ed.), Children's childhoods
observed and experienced (pp. 128 -143). London: The Falmer Press.
Morrow, V., & R ichards, M. (2002). The ethics of social research with children: An
overview. In K. W. M. Fulford, D. Dickensen & T. H. Murray (Eds.), Health care
ethics and human values: An introductory text with readings and case studies (pp.
270-277). Malden, MA: Black well Publishers.
Myall, B. (2008). Conversations with children: Working with generational issues. In P.
Christensen & A. James (Eds.), Research with children: Perspectives and practices
(2nd ed., pp. 109 -124). London: Routledge.
National Association for Ed ucation of Young Children. (1987). Developmentally
appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth to 8:
A position statement of the National Association for Education of Young Children .
Washington, DC: National Association for Education of Young Children.
National Association for Education of Young Children. (1997). Developmentally
appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth to 8:

237 A position statement of the National Association for Education o f Young Children
(2nd ed.). Washington, DC: National Association for Education of Young Children.
National Association for Education of Young Children. (2009). Developmentally
appropriate practice in early childhood programs serving children from birth to 8:
A position statement of the National Association for Education of Young Children
(3rd ed.). Washington, DC: National Association for Education of Young Children.
National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). (1999). National statement on
ethic al conduct in research involving humans . Retrieved February 23, 2007, from
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/PUBLICATIONS/synopses/_files/e35.pdf .
National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Australian Research Council, &
Australian Vice Chancellors' Commi ttee. (2007). National statement on ethical
conduct in human research . Retrieved July 12, 2009, from
http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/PUBLICATIONS/synopses/_files/e72.pdf .
New, R. (1998). Theory and praxis in Reggio Emilia: They know what they are doing, and
why. I n The hundred languages of children: The Reggio Emilia approach –
advanced reflections (2nd ed., pp. 261 -284). Greenwich, CT: Ablex Publishing.
Nicolopoulou, A., Scales, B., & Weintraub, J. (1994). Gender differences and symbolic
imagination in the stories of four -year-olds. In A. Dyson & C. Genishi (Eds.), The
need for story: Cultural diversity in classroom and community (pp. 102 -123).
Urbana, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English.
Nikola -Lisa, W. (1993). Pirates, pirates over salt, salt sea. Child ren's literature in education,
24, 101 -114.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107 -110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
Nussbaum, M. (1997). Cultivating humanity: A classical defense of reform in liberal
education . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .
O'Donnell, D. (2007). Greasing the glue and gluing the grease: Beautiful civic engagement
with kids, by kids, for kids. The New Quarterly , (101), 55 -63.
O‘Neill, C. (1991). Artists and models: Theatre teachers for the future. Arts Education Policy
Review (March/April), 23 -26.
Oakley, A. (1994). Women a nd children first and last: Parallels and differences between
children's and women's studies. In B. Myall (Ed.), Children's childhood observed
and experienced (pp. 13 -32). London: Falmer Press.
Opie, I., & Op ie, R. (1977). The lore and language of schoolchildren . Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Oxfam GB. (n.d.). Find your way through trade lesson 7: It‘s just not fair. Retrieved
September 8, 2007, from
http://www.oxfam.org.uk/education/resources/find_your_w ay_through_trade/files/le
sson7_it's_just_not_fair.pdf
Page, J. (2008). Rethinking citizenship from the perspective of four and five year old
children's experiences of happiness. In G. MacNaughton, P. Hughes & K. Smith
(Eds.), Young children as active citiz ens (pp. 220 -229). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge
Scholars Publishing.
Paley, V. G. (1981). Wally's stories: Conversations in the kindergarten . Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Paley, V. G. (1993). You can't say you can't play . Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni versity
Press.
Paley, V. G. (1997). The girl with the brown crayon: Children use stories to shape their
lives. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Pavlov, I. (1927/ 1960). Conditional reflexes . New York: Dover Publications.
Pettit, P. (1997). Republic anism: A theory of freedom and government . Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Piaget, J. (1929). Child's conception of the world . Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield
Publishers
Piaget, J. (1932). The moral judgment of the child . London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Tru bner
and Co.

238 Piaget, J. (1950/2001). Psychology of intelligence . Abingdon, OX: Routledge
Piaget, J. (1952). The origins of intelligence in children . New York: International University
Press.
Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams and imitation in childhood . Lond on: Routledge.
Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge . London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Postman, N. (1982/1994). The disappearance of childhood . New York: Vintage Books.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9 (5), 1-6.
Prest, C., & Wildblood, S. (2005). Children Law: An interdisciplinary handbook . Bristol:
Jordan Publishing Ltd.
Prout, A. (2001). Representing children: Reflections on the children 5 -16 research
programme. Children & Society, 15 , 193 -201.
Prout, A. ( 2002). Researching children as social actors: An introduction to the children 5 -16
programme. Children & Society, 16 , 67-76.
Pryor, B., & McDonald, M. (1998). Maybe tomorrow . Ringwood, VIC: Penguin.
Qvortrup, J. (2001, November). Children and childhood in social structure . Paper presented
at the Cost A19 meeting, Trondheim, Norway.
Raines, S. C., & Johnston, J. M. (2003). Developmental appropriateness: New contexts and
challenges. In J. P. Isenberg & M. R. Jalongo (Eds.), Major trends and issues in
early ch ildhood education: Challenges, controversies, and insights (pp. 85 -97). New
York: Teachers College Press.
Ragan, K. (1998). Fearless girls . Moorebank, NSW: Bantham Books.
Rayner, A. (2004). Introduction to the 'complex self'. Retrieved December 10, 2009, from
http://people.bath.ac.uk/bssadmr/inclusionality/complexself.htm
Rayner, M. (2002). The state of children's rights in Australia. In B. Franklin (Ed.), The new
handbook of children's rights: Comparative policy and practice (pp. 345 -361).
London: Routle dge.
Raywid, M. (1987). Democratic classroom: Mistake or misnomer. Theory into practice, 26 ,
480-489.
Raz, J. (2001). Value, respect and attachment . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Reason, P., & Bradbury, H. (2006). Introduction: Inquiry and partici pation in search of a
world worthy of human inspiration. In P. Reason & H. Bradbury (Eds.), A handbook
of action research (pp. 1 -10). London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Ritchie, O., & Kollar, M. (1964). The sociology of childhood . New York: Appleton Century
Crofts.
Roberts, H. (2008). Listening to children: And hearing them. In P. Christensen & A. James
(Eds.), Research with children: Perspectives and practices (2nd ed., pp. 260 -275).
Abingdon, OX: Routledge.
Robinson, K., & Jones Di áz, C. (2005). Diversity and difference in early childhood
education: Issues for theory and practice . Maidenhead, UK: McGraw -Hill
International .
Roche, J. (1999). Children: Rights, participation and citizenship. Childhood, 6 (4), 475 -493.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context . New
York: Oxford University Press.
Rogoff, B. (1998). Cognition as a collaborative process. In W. Damon, D. Kuhn & R. Siegler
(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. Cognition, perceptions and language,
pp. 679 -744). New York: John Wiley.
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of child development . Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Rosen, B. (1988). And none of it was nonsense: The power of storytelling in school . London:
Mary Glasgow Publications Ltd.
Rousseau, J . (1762/ 2007). Emile: Or, on education . Sioux Falls, SD: Nu Vision
Publications.
Rousseau, J. (1762/1968). The social contract . London, UK: Penguin Books.
Rowe, D., & Newton, J. (Eds.). (1994). You, Me, Us! London: Citizenship Foundation.

239 Ryan's Well Foun dation. (2007). Ryan's story. Retrieved May 18, 2009, from
http://www.ryanswell.ca/story/index.html
Ryan, S. (2005). Freedom to choose: Examining children's experiences in choice time. In N.
Yelland (Ed.), Critical issues in early childhood education (pp. 99-114). Berkshire,
UK: Open University Press.
Ryan, S., & Grieshaber, S. (2005). Shifting from developmental to post -modern practices in
early childhood teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 56 (1), 34 -45.
Saballa, M., MacNaughton, G., & Smith , K. (2008). Working with children to create policy:
The case of the Australian Capital Territory's Children's Plan. In G. MacNaughton,
P. Hughes & K. Smith (Eds.), Young children as active citizens (pp. 62 -76).
Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Saxby, M. (1994). Introduction. In P. J. Cooper & R. Collins (Eds.), The power of story:
Teaching through storytelling . Melbourne: MacMillan.
Schimmel, N. (2002). The tailor. In E. Brody, J. Goldspinner, K. Green, R. Leventhal & J.
Porcino (Eds.), Spinning t ales, weaving hope: Stories, storytelling and activities for
peace, justice and environment (2nd ed., pp. 211). Gabriola Island, Canada: New
Society Publishers.
Schon, D. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action . New York:
Basic.
Schuck, P. (2002). Liberal citizenship. In E. F. Isin & B. Turner (Eds.), Handbook of
citizenship studies (pp. 131 -144). London: Sage Publications Ltd.
Schwerdt, M. (2006). Winnie the Pooh and Lincoln too: Children’s literature as civic
education. Unpu blished Doctoral dissertation, University of Tennessee, Knoxville,
USA.
Scott, J. (2000). Children as respondents: The challenge for quantitative methods. In P.
Christensen & A. James (Eds.), Research with children: Perspectives and practices
(pp. 98 -119). London: Falmer Press.
Sendak, M. (1963). Where the wild things are . London: Picture Lions.
Seymour, B. (2006). Mutiny in the mainstream. Journal of Visual Culture, 5 (1), 112 -114.
Shapiro, M. S. (1983). Child's garden: The kindergarten movement from Froebe l to Dewey .
University Park, PA: Pennsylvannia State University Press.
Silin, J. (1995). Sex, death and the education of our children: Our passion for ignorance in
the age of AIDS . New York: Teachers College Press.
Silin, J. (2000). Real children and imagi ned homelands: Preparing to teach in today‘s world.
In N. Nager & E. K. Shapiro (Eds.), Revisiting a progressive pedagogy: The
developmental -interaction approach (pp. 257 -273). New York: State University of
New York Press.
Silin, J. (2005). Who can speak?: Silence, voice and pedagogy. In N.Yelland (Ed.), Critical
issues in early childhood education (pp.81 -98). Maidenhead, UK: Open University
Press.
Silverstein, S. (1977). The giving tree . New York: Harper and Row.
Sinclair, R. (2004). Participation in pract ice: Making it meaningful, effective and
sustainable. Children and society, 18 , 106 -118.
Siraj -Blatchford, I. (1999). Early childhood pedagogy: Practice, principles and research. In
P. Mortimore (Ed.), Understanding pedagogy and its impact on learning (pp. 20-
45). London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Skattebol, J. (2003). Dark, dark and darker: Negotiations of identity in an early childhood
setting. Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 4 (2), 149 -166.
Smale, J. (2009, April). Children's participation in urban settings respecting children as
active citizens: A city of Port Phillip, Melbourne, Australia perspective . Paper
presented at the The Conference of Child Friendly Cities Asia Pacific Regional
Network UNESCO Asia Pacific Growing Up in Cities.
Solarzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2001). Critical race and LatCrit theory and method:
Counter -storytelling. Qualitative Studies in Education, 14 (4), 471 -495.

240 Solarzano, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2002). Critical race methodology: Counter storytelling as
an analytical frame work for educational research. Qualitative Inquiry, 8 (1), 23 -44.
Sorsy, I. (1995). Two brothers: A story from West Africa. In M. Medlicott & A. Akintola
(Eds.), The river that went to the sky (pp. 65 -70). London: Kingfisher.
Soto, L. D. (2005). Children ma ke the best theorists. In L. D. Soto & S. B (Eds.), Power and
voice in research with children (pp. 215 -222). New York: Peter Lang.
Soto, L. D. (Ed.). (2000). The politics of early childhood education . New York: Peter Lang.
Spiro, J. (2008). How I arrived a t a notion of knowledge transformation, through
understanding the story of myself as creative writer, creative educator, creative
manager and educational researcher. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of Bath, Bath.
Stasiulis, D. (2002). The act ive child citizen: Lessons from Canadian policy and the
children's movement. Citizenship Studies, 6 (4), 507 -538.
Stephens, J. (1992). Language and ideology in children's fiction . Essex, UK: Longman.
Stephens, J., & McCallum, R. (1998). Retelling stories, f raming culture: Traditional story
and metanarratives in children's literature . New York: Garland Pub.
Stern, R. (2006). The child’s right to participation – reality or rhetoric? Unpublished
Doctoral dissertation, Uppsala University, Uppsala.
Stonehouse, A. (1994). Not just nice ladies: A book of readings on early childhood care and
education . Castle Hill, NSW: Pademelon Press.
Stringer, E. (1999). Action research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stringer, E. (2004). Action research in education . Upper Sa ddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education.
Sullivan, B. (2006). A living theory of a practice of social justice: Realising the right of
traveller children to educational quality. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Limerick, Limerick.
Sutton -Smith, B. (1997). The ambiguity of play . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Swanwick, K. (1982). The arts in education: Dreaming or wide awake? London: University
of London Institute of Education.
Sykes, R. (1993). Murawina: Australian women of high achieveme nt. Sydney: Doubleday.
Tatar, M. (2003). The hard facts of the Grimms' fairy tales (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
The State of Queensland, Environmental Protection Agency (2001). Coxen’s fig -parrot
cyclopsitta diophthalma coxeni reco very plan 2001 -2005. Retrieved July 27, 2007,
from
http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/publications/p01379aa.pdf/Coxens_figparrot_iCyclopsitt
a_diophthalma_coxeni/i_recovery_plan_20012005.pdf retrieved 24/07/2007.
The World Children's Prize for the Rights of the Chil d. (n.d). The World Children's Prize for
the Rights of the Child 2000: Iqbal Masih. Retrieved August 27, 2007, from
http://www.childrensworld.org/prizelaurates/page.html?pid=344
Trostle Brand, S., & Donato, J. M. (2001). Storytelling in emergent literacy : Fostering
multiple intelligences . Albany, NY: Delmar, Thomson Learning.
Turner -Bowker, D. M. (1996). Gender stereotyped descriptors in children's picture books:
Does "curious Jane" exist in the literature? Sex roles, 35 (7/8), 461 -488.
Van Bueren, G. (199 5). The international law on the rights of the child . The Netherlands:
Martinus Nijhoff.
Viruru, R. (2008). Child labour in India: Issues and complexities. Contemporary Issues in
Early Childhood, 9 (3), 224 -233.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The dev elopment of higher psychological processes
(M. Cole, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Waksler, F. C. (1991). Studying children: Phenomenological insights. In F. C. Waksler (Ed.),
Studying the social worlds of children: Sociological reading s (pp. 60 -70). London:
Falmer Press.
Walkerdine, V. (1984). Developmental psychology and child centred pedagogy: The
insertion of Piaget into early education. In J. Henriques, W. Hollaway, C. Irwin, C.

241 Venn & V. Walkerdine (Eds.), Changing the subject: Psy chology, social regulation
and subjectivity (pp. 148 -198). London: Methuen & Co Ltd.
Watkins, C., & Mortimore, P. (1999). Pedagogy: What do we know? In P. Mortimore (Ed.),
Understanding pedagogy and its impact on learning (pp. 1 -19). London: Paul
Chapman P ublishing.
Weber, E. (1984). Ideas influencing early childhood education: A theoretical analysis . New
York: Teachers College University Press.
Whalley, J. (1996). The development of illustrated texts and picture books. In P. Hunt & S.
Bannister Ray (Eds.), The international companion encyclopaedia of children's
literature (pp. 220 -230). London: Routledge.
Whitehead, J. (1989). Creating a living educational theory from questions of the kind, 'How
do I improve my practice?'. The Cambridge Journal of Education , 19(1), 41 -52.
Whitehead, J. (2000). How do I improve my practice? Creating and legitimating an
epistemology of practice. Reflective Practice, 1 (1), 91 -104.
Whitehead, J., & McNiff, J. (2006). Action research: A living theory . London: Sage.
Whitehead, J. (2009 a). Justifying the use of a living theory methodology in the creation of
your living educational theory. Responding to Creswell. Retrieved December 12,
2009, from http://www.actionresearch.net/arsup/Creswellqualitativemethods.pdf
Whitehead, J. (2009 b). Generating living theory and understanding in action research
studies. Action Research, 7 (1), 85 -99.
Williams, J. (2002). Introduction. In N. Dower & J. Williams (Eds.), Global citizenship: A
critical introduction (pp. 1 -8). New York: Routledge.
Willia ms, L. R. (1994). Developmentally appropriate practice and cultural values: A case in
point. In B. L. Mallory & R. S. New (Eds.), Diversity and developmentally
appropriate practices: Challenges for early childhood education (pp. 155 -165). New
York: Teacher s College Press.
Winner, E. (1988). The point of words: Children's understanding of metaphor and irony .
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Winston, J. (1998). Drama, narrative and moral education . London: Falmer Press.
Winter, R. (1989). Learning fro m experience . London: Falmer Press .
Winter, R. (1998). Finding a voice – thinking with others: A conception of action research.
Educational Action Research, 6 (1), 53 -68.
Wood, E. (2008). Contestation, transformation and reconceptualisation in early childho od
education. In E. Wood (Ed.), The Routledge reader in early childhood education
(pp. 1 -18). Abingdon, OX: Routledge.
Woodhead, M. (1997). Psychology and cultural construction of children's needs. In A. James
& A. Prout (Eds.), Constructing and reconstruc ting childhood: Contemporary issues
in the sociological study of childhood (2nd ed., pp. 63 -84). London:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Woodhead, M. (2006). UNESCO for all Global Monitoring Report 2007 Early childhood
care and education – Changing perspectives on early childhood: Theory research and
policy. International Journal of Equity and Innovation in Early Childhood, 4 (2), 5 –
48.
Wyness, M. G. (2000). Contesting childhood . London: Falmer Press.
Young, I. M. (1995). Mothers, citizenship, and independence: A critique of pure family
values. Ethics (105), 535 -556.
Young, I. (2000). Inclusion and democracy . New York: Oxford University Press.
Zipes, J. (1983). Fairy tales and the art of subversion: The classical genre for children and
the process of civilization . London: He inemann.
Zipes, J. (1994). Fairy tale as myth: Myth as fairy tale . Lexington: University Press of
Kentucky.
Zipes, J. (1995). Creative storytelling: Building community, changing lives . New York:
Routledge.
Zipes, J. (2004). Speaking out: Storytelling and c reative drama for children . Abingdon,
Oxon: Routledge.

242 Zipes, J. (2005). To eat or be eaten: The survival of traditional storytelling. Storytelling, Self,
Society, 2 (1), 1 -20.

243 APPENDICES
Appendix A: Table of Storytelling Workshops and Follow -up Convers ations
CLUSTER ONE – TERM 2/3 2007
DATA CODES AND
DATES RESEARCH PROCESS/ PHASE WHO
2/05/2007
28/05/2007
14/06/2007
19/06/2007 Preliminary visits to build rapport Researcher, teacher, children
W1 16/07/2007
W1 TC 18/07/2007
W1 CC 1 8/07/2007 Storytelli ng workshop one – The Freedom Bird
Follow -up conversation with teacher
Follow -up conversation with children Researcher as storyteller, teacher, teacher aide, children
Researcher and teacher
Researcher, Max, David, Juliet, Denmark, Molly and
Ebony
W2 2 3/07/2007
W2 TC 25/07/2007
W2 CC 25/07/2007 Storytelling workshop two – Awi Usdi
Follow -up conversation with teacher
Follow -up conversation with children Researcher as storyteller, teacher, teacher aide, children
Researcher and teacher
Researcher , Declan , David, Ebony, Denmark and Juliet
W3 30/07/2007

W3 TC 31/07/2007
W3 CC 31/07/2007 Storytelling workshop three – The Lonely
Coxen’s Fig -parrot
Follow -up conversation with teacher
Follow -up conversation with children Researcher as storyteller, teacher, teacher aide, children

Researcher and teacher
Researcher , Juliet, Max, Molly, Finlay, Liam and
Fergie
W4 6/08/2007
W4 T C 9/08/2007
W4 CI 9/08/2007 Storytelling workshop four – Two Brothers
Follow -up conversation with teacher
Follow -up conversation with children Researcher as storyteller, teacher, teacher aide, children
Researcher and teacher
Researcher, Denmark, Molly, Finlay, Liam and Fergie
W5 21/08/07

W5 TC 22/08/07 Storytelling workshop five (no story –
summative/ reflective workshop)
Follow -up conversation with teacher Researcher, supply teacher, teacher aide, children

Researcher and teacher
Critical review of data and planning for next
cluster Researcher
CLUSTER TWO – TERM 3 2007
W6 30/08/2007
W6 TC 31/08/2007
W6 CC 31/08/200 7 Storytelli ng workshop six – Iqbal’s Story
Follow -up conversation with teacher
Follow -up conversation with children Researcher as storyteller, teacher, teacher aide, children
Researcher and teacher
Researcher, David, Juliet, Ebony, Molly, Finlay and
Ella
W7 3/09/ 2007
W7 TC 5/09/2007
W7 CC 5/09/2007 Storytelling workshop seven – Craig’s Story
Follow -up conversation with teacher
Follow -up conversation with children Researcher as storyteller, teacher, teacher aide, children
Researcher and teacher
Researcher, Scott , Carl, David and Juliet
W8 10/09/2007

W8 T C 12/09/2007
W8 C C 12/09/2007 Storytelling workshop eight – The Rich Factory
Owner and the Wise Old Woman
Follow -up conversation with teacher
Follow -up conversation with children Researcher as storyteller, te acher, teacher aide, children

Researcher and teacher
Researcher, Denmark, Peter, Liam, Patrick and Max
W9 19/09/2007

W9 TC 19/09/2007 Storytelling workshop nine (no story –
summative/ reflective workshop)
Follow -up conversation with teacher Researcher , teacher, teacher aide, children

Researcher and teacher
Critical review of data and p lanning Researcher
CLUSTER THREE – TERM 4 2007
W10 9/10/2007

W10 TC 10/10/2007
W10 CC 10/10/2007 Storytelling workshop ten – Two Blocks

Follow -up conversation wi th teacher
Follow -up conversation with children Researcher as storyteller, teacher, teacher aide, children

Researcher and class teacher
Researcher, Patrick, Ella, Fergie, Mat, Juliet and Carl
W11 15/10/2007

W11 TC 17/10/2007
W11 CC 17/10/2007 Storytel ling workshop eleven – The GREED
Machine
Follow -up conversation with teacher
Follow -up conversation with children Researcher as storyteller, teacher, teacher aide, children

Researcher and class teacher
Researcher, Peter, Max, David, Ebony and Molly
W12 23/10/2007
W12 TC 24/10/2007
W12 CC 24/10/2007 Storytelling workshop twelve – Two Rocks
Follow -up conversation with teacher
Follow -up conversation with children Researcher as storyteller, teacher, teacher aide, children
Researcher and class teacher
Researcher, Denmark, David, Declan, Ebony, Carl and
Ella
W13 2/11/2007
W13 5/11/2007
W13 TC 11/11/2007
W13ME&FI
14/11/2007
W13 TAI 27/11/2007 Storytelling workshop thirteen (children tell
storie s)
Additional recording of children‘s stories
Follow -up conve rsation with teacher
Interview with Molly, Ella and Fergie

Interview with teacher aide Researcher as videographer, teacher, teacher aide,
children
Researcher as videographer, children
Researcher and teacher
Researcher and Molly, Ella, and Fergie

Resea rcher and teacher aide

244 Appendix B – List of Activities in Each Workshop
CLUSTER ONE – TERM 2/3 2007
DATA CODES AND
DATES WORKSHOP ACTIVITIES – suggested by researcher and teacher
W1 16/07/2007
Storytelling workshop one – The Freedom Bird
– Drawing in journals
– Hot seat (interview) the Hunter from the
story
– Play ―Doggey who‘s got the bone‖ game
with half group only communicating
through gesture.
– Dance – as if free, then as if trapped.
W2 23/07/2007
Storytelling workshop two – Awi Usdi
– Drawing in journals
– Discussion of organisations that protect
animals (e.g., WWF and Voiceless)
– Designing a device that nurtures and/or
protects birds &/or animals
W3 30/07/2007

Storytelling workshop three – The Lonely
Coxen’s Fig -parrot
– Drawing in journals
– Making signs to alert others about protecting
the Coxen‘s fig-parrot
– Making a papier mache Coxen‘s fig-parrot
replica
W4 6/08/2007
Storytelling workshop four – Two Brothers
– Drawing in journals
– Coxen‘s fig-parrot petition
– Miniature playsacpes
W5 21/08/07

Storytelling workshop five (no story –
summative/ reflective workshop)
– Drawing in journals
– Miniature playsacpes
– Hot seat Coxen‘s fig-parrot
CLUSTER TWO – TERM 3 2007 ACTIVITIES – suggested by children
W6 30/08/2007
Storytelling workshop six – Iqbal’s Story
– Drawing in journals
– Making a card to Principal seeking help to
stop child labour
– Block building a factory
W7 3/09/2007
Storytelling workshop seven – Craig’s Story – Draw ing in journals
– Building a bigger factory
– List of ways to arrest cruel factory owners
W8 10/09/2007

Storytelling workshop eight – The Rich Factory
Owner and the Wise Old Woman
– Drawing
– Building a model school (out of a box)
– A meeting on child labour
W9 19/09/2007

Storytelling workshop nine (no story –
summative/ reflective workshop)
– Drawing in journals
– Hot seat wise old woman
– ―It‘s not fair‖ – Oxfam UK education game
(suggested by researcher)
– Building a boat with blocks
CLUSTER THREE – TERM 4 200 7
W10 9/10/2007

Storytelling workshop ten – Two Blocks

– Drawing in journals
– Making a list of what to do with 2 blocks
(suggested by researcher )
– Build a really big thing together with blocks
W11 15/10/2007

Storytelling workshop eleven – The GREED
Machine
– Drawing in journals
– Build the GREED machine
– Have a meeting
W12 23/10/2007
Storytelling workshop twelve – Two Rocks
– Drawing in journals
– Draw animals on the computer
– Build Greenland and Black -n-White land
W13 2/11/2007
Storytelling workshop t hirteen (children tell
storie s)
– Drawing what is most precious on a small
bag
– Making wooden peg puppets
– Playing with figurines in preparation for
storytelling

245 Appendix C – Research Information Distributed to Participating Children‘s Families
CHILD PARTICIPANT INFORMATION
for QUT RESEARCH PROJECT

Leaving traces: A social justice storytelling program for young children

Research Team Contacts
Principal researcher: Louise G. Phillips (PhD
student) Principal Supervisor: Profess or Sue
Grieshaber
Phone: Phone:
Email Email:

Description
This project is being undertaken as part of a PhD project by Louise G. Phillips. The purpose
of this project is to understand how young children respond to social justice issues through
an ar ts based storytelling program. The research team requests your child‘s participation in
this program as a member of ….. prep class.

Participation
Your child‘s participation in this project is voluntary. If you do agree for your child to participate,
you c an still choose to withdraw your child from participation at any time during the project
without comment or penalty. Your decision for your child to participate will in no way impact
upon your current or future relationship with QUT or Education Queensland .
Your child‘s participation will involve experiencing storytelling workshops of ninety
minutes duration facilitated by the principal researcher and your child‘s class teacher. These
workshops include: a told story, group discussion, and a range of visual art, dance and drama
experiences. Each workshop will be both video and audio recorded. It is anticipated that
there will be approximately twelve (12) workshops spread across terms three and four in
2007. Your child will also be asked for feedback on these workshops by contributing to a
small group conversation on occasions throughout the program. A schedule of the dates for
each workshop and interview will be made available prior to the event.

Expected benefits
It is expected that this project will benefi t your child through participation in an innovative and
collaborative educational storytelling program .
Risks
There are no risks, beyond typical classroom experiences, associated with your child‘s
participation in this project.
Confidentiality
All comment s and responses made by your child are anonymous and will be treated
confidentially. The names of individual persons are not required in any of the responses. The
principal researcher will maintain the confidentiality of the audio and video recordings. Th e
audio and video recordings may be used in conference presentations on the findings from
this research project, with the use of pseudonyms to protect the identity of your child.

246 Appendix D: Workshop One Story – The Freedom Bird (Thai folktale)
Louise: This is a story about a hunter. I wonder what you know about hunters. Carl?
Carl: They hunt.
Louise: They hunt. Max?
Max: They kill animals. Hunters kill animals.
Louise: Why might they kill animals? What do they want the animals for, Nick?
Nick: For eating.
Louise: For eating. And Juliet?
Juliet: Because its there prey. Because there are no shops out there.
Louise: They are preying on the animals. Now there are probably lots of skills that hunters
need,
but there are two skills that they must h ave to be able to catch an animal. To be able to
find
the animal where the animals are what do they need to do to be able to find the animal.
Declan: They need to be quiet.
Louise: (whispered ) Yes they need to be quiet ( normal voice ) because if the ani mal heard them
what might the animal do.
UN: Run away.
Louise: What‘s another way, Denmark?
Denmark: They need __so they can see. ( held up hands to eyes like binoculars )
Louise: They need to be very good at looking to be able to spot any movement that m ight be an
animal coming… the crunch of a leaf. So this hunter was out in the jungle looking and
listening. When he heard a very strange noise. Do you want to hear what it sounded
like?
MC: YES!!!!!
Louise: It went like this – ―NANANANA – BLAHH!! BLAHH!! ‖
MC: (laughter )
Louise: And high up in the tree you know what he saw?
MC: (heads shaking )
Louise: He saw a beautiful golden bird and the hunter thought, ―How could something so
beautiful have such an ugly song‖.
FC: (laughter )
Louise: And then the bird went (do you want to join in?) – ―NANANANA – BLAHH!!
BLAHH!!‖
All: ―NANANANA – BLAHH!! BLAHH!!‖

247 Louise: The hunter thought: ―How dare you!‖. So the hunter climbed up the tree and he threw a
sack over the bird. ―There that will stop that dreadful noi se.‖
MC: (laughter )
Louise: Then whilst he was walking along the bird went ( hand over mouth – muffled voice )
―NANANANA – BLAHH!! BLAHH!!‖ ―How dare that bird!‖ thought the hunter so
he went home, untied the bag, pulled out a knife, and chopped up the bi rd whilst
muttering ―that horrible bird‖ and he was just washing the knife when he heard the bird
sing ―NANANANA – BLAHH!! BLAHH!!‖ ( disjointedly shifting jaw from side to
side)
MC: (laughter )
Louise: And so he took all the pieces of the bird and put the m in a pot of boiling water threw
them in. But as soon as the hunter turned his back he heard: ―NANANANA –
BLAHH!! BLAHH!!‖ ( bubblingly ). ―I don‘t believe this!‖ blurted the hunter as he ran
outside and dug a deep hole in the ground, then climbed out of t he hole and threw all
the pieces of bird into the hole. He covered it up then stomped on it and sighed:
―HAAA!‖ Then as he headed towards the door he heard from deep down in the
ground: ―NANANANA – BLAHH!! BLAHH!!‖ The hunter was furious, so he ran and
grabbed the shovel and dug up the pieces of the bird, laid them on some newspaper,
wrapped them up, tied some string around it, then tied some big rocks to it. Then he
took his parcel to the river. (Are you ready to make a big splash?)
All: SPLASH!!!!!!
Louis e: ―Now it is quiet,‖ thought the hunter, so he went back home to his hut to have some
dinner. Then he came back down to the river the next day, then suddenly out of the
river flew hundreds and hundreds of these birds and they sang. (Do you remember the
song?)
All: NANANANA – BLAHH!! BLAHH!!
Louise: And the hunter looked up: ―I know who you are now. You are the freedom bird. I
should have known that. You can‘t kill freedom.‖ And that is the story of the freedom
bird.

Story adapted from: Livo, N. (Ed.). (1988). Joining in: An anthology of audience participation
stories & how to tell them . compiled by Teresa Miller with assistance from Anne Pellowski.
Cambridge, MA: Yellow Moon Press.

248 Appendix E: Workshop Two Story – Awi Usdi (Cherokee Story from North
Carolina)
Louise: Today‘s story is from a long, long time ago, when the world was young and
animals talked to each other. The animals and people lived peacefully
together until the people discovered how to make a bow and arrow so people
could kill animals easily.
Denmark: My dad made me one.
Louise: The animals became very worried for the people were killing more and more
animals than they needed. Before they just killed the animals that they
needed to eat or for skins to keep them warm. Now they were kil ling the
animals so quickly that the animals feared that one day there would be none
of them left. So the animals thought it was time they had a meeting and each
group of animals met together. The first group of animals to meet was the
bears. All the bears got together and the chief old bear said, ― I think that we
need to fight back‖. One of the warrior bears questioned, ―How can we do
that when they have bow and arrows. We can‘t get close to them and if we
get close to them, we will get killed. We must us e the same weapons as they
do.‖ They found a stick and tied some vine to one end and then the other.
They found another stick and sharpened one end and they lifted it up but
they couldn‘t hold it very well because their claws got in the way. One bear
said I think we should cut off our claws then see if we can do it. So he found
a sharp stone to cut their claws on one paw then the other and then lifted up
their bows and arrows and they could shoot with such precision reaching
their targets every time. ( Child ren mimicked actions of making bow and
arrow. ). And then the old bear said, ―Can you still climb a tree ?‖ And then
the bears tried and their paws kept sliding down without claws they could
not climb anymore. Then the old bear said, ―Can you dig?‖ So they t ried but
they could only make surface marks. Before their claws could dig really
deep holes in the ground to dig up bugs and worms. The old bear said, ―This
is no good. We must give up. We can ‘t fight the humans. We still need our
claws.‖ Then the other an imals started to meet. (What‘s another group of
animals? Name an animal.)
Declan: An elephant.
Louise: So the elephants all came together. (What would the elephants think of as an
idea to stop the humans from killing so many of them. Max?)
Max: Put wa ter on them.

249 Louise: Water on them. (What‘s another idea, Denmark?)
Denmark: Make their (moved hands from face out in curves ) spear them.
Louise: Oh their tusks. They‘re quite huge.
Denmark: Or whack them with their trunk.
Juliet: I was thinking of that too.
Louise: So lots of ideas to fight them back. So the elephants thought about all of
these ideas and they tried some of them, then another group of animals met
and they were ( looked to Liam )
Liam: Hippos.
Louise: (Hippos and what ideas did they think of? Fergie what idea did you have?)
Fergie: They could roll on them.
Louise: They could roll on the humans because they are so big and heavy. Yes
Denmark?
Denmark: They could eat them up with their big mouth.
Louise: So the hippos thought about so me of these ideas. Then tried some of them
but you know they could not get close enough to try these ideas before the
humans shot them with an arrow. The next animals to meet were the deer
and the leader of the deer was Awi Usdi. And she said, ―This is the way it is
meant to be. Humans do need to eat animals but these animals are doing it
the wrong way. They should not be killing for what they want but for what
they need and they should be doing it respectfully. They should have a
special ceremony before th ey kill, and they should ask for permission
before, and then after, they should ask for forgiveness. This is the right
way.‖ And then Awi Usdi said, ―I will go now and tell the hunters‖. So she
went and she whispered into the ears of all the hunters about her teachings
of the right way to hunt. Some of the hunters woke up and said, ―I think I
had a strange dream last night. This deer was talking to me. Huhh!!‖ And
then didn‘t think anymore about it. They continued to kill animals whenever
they felt like it . Some of the hunters did listen to Awis Usdi‘s important
message. ―I‘ve heard that we must think before we kill and kill only when
we are really hungry or really cold. And we must have a special ceremony
and ask for permission from Awi Usdi, the deer and afterwards we must ask
for forgiveness from the animal‘s spirit.‖ Now some of the hunters – you
know how some of them didn‘t listen; well they just kept on shooting their
arrows wherever they felt like it.
Denmark: They had to fight with the other hunters.

250 Louise: What happened was, they soon couldn‘t walk anymore so they couldn‘t go
hunting anymore. Awi Usdi stopped them. So hunters soon learnt that they
should only kill when they need to and do it in a special and respectful way ,
so they could live toget her. This is how the Cherokee people in North
America have agreed to live with the animals.

Adapted from Awi Usdi (pp. 173 -174) in Caduto, M.J. & Bruchac, J. (1997). Keepers of the
earth: Native American stories and environmental activities for children . Colorado: Fulcrum
Publishing .

251 Appendix F: Workshop Three Story – The Lonely Coxen’s Fig -parrot
Louise: A long, long time ago the land that we live in and the places that we now
visit and holiday at were covered with rainforests —beautiful rainforests
with huge trees —moreton bay fig trees and green strangler vine fig trees
laden with succulent figs. This story is about a beautiful green parrot who
lived amidst these trees. He had a broad round body and short stumpy tail.
Denmark: I know what it is —a king parrot.
Louise: (points at poster of CFP )
UN: King parrot.
Juliet: Not the king parrot.
Louise: The Coxen‘s fig -parrot. He had distinctly blue feathers on his forehead
surrounded by a few red feathers and an orange -red patch on his cheek with
a blu e band below. His beak was pale grey in colour and the tip was a dark
grey. His eyes were brown like the colour of the earth. A very beautiful
parrot that would fly amidst the majestic fig trees and would call out ―zeet
zeet‖ and all the parrots would do t he same. Because there were hundreds of
parrots, they would call back. ( gestured to all to make call)
All: ―Zeet zeet —zeet zeet‖.
Louise: And they would fly around together and swoop down when they found a fig
tree
abundant with ripe figs, feasting on the seeds ( myself and some children
make flying actions and feeding actions ). Their favourite food is the seeds
from ripe figs on moreton bay fig trees and green strangler vine fig trees.
There were hundreds of them and they shared these figs with other bi rds and
animals and the Jinibara people and Turrbal people, there was plenty to go
around. Everyone ate just what they needed. ( Peter and Charlie continue
flying swooping actions). But more people came from another land. They
came in big ships, firstly, fr om England and Ireland.
Tony: My Daddy comes from England.
Louise: And they came with axes and started to chop down the trees to build houses
(I stood up to act out chopping down a tree – Declan, Peter, Charlie all join
in). They used the wood to make ho uses. And then more people came so
they built more houses. They chopped down more trees.
Juliet: And they chopped down the fig trees.

252 Louise: That is exactly right Juliet and then they brought huge machines that could
knock down many trees at once. And p eople came from other countries like
India –
UN: Chinese
Louise: (What‘s another country where people came from to live in Australia?)
UN: China
Denmark: Denmark
Juliet: Japan, China
Max: USA
Denmark: Denmark —my mum came from there.
Declan: Spain —my Mum came from Spain so that is why I chose it.
Louise: Molly?
Molly: Brazil
Louise: People came from all these countries. For all these people to live here they
needed a house. Every family that came here needed a house. So they
cleared land to build h ouses on so what they would do is chop down trees or
get the big machines to knock down many trees. This affected the food
supply for the beautiful Coxen‘s fig -parrot. They were finding it harder and
harder to find food because there was less trees, so man y of them died. With
fewer left it was harder for them to find a mate to make more Coxen‘s fig –
parrots. This poor little Coxen‘s fig -parrot flew around looking for other‘s
like it screeching ―zeet zeet‖ in search of others that might return his call but
there was silence. And so it learnt to do everything by itself. Find water by
itself. Find figs by itself and preen its own feathers.
Juliet: And it couldn‘t breed.
Louise: Yes it found it hard to find another mate. And being all alone it was very
vulnerabl e so the parrot needed to be very quiet. It had to move very quietly
on branches so predators would not hear it. Predators like the owl, the
goshawk and people. This bird is so rare. So few of them left now. They
think only fifty. That is not much more tha n this class and Prep R. Because
they are so rare you know what might be happening. These birds are so rare
and so precious that they are worth a lot of money, so some people might be
catching them and selling them overseas. What this bird needs is more
forest.
Denmark: More fig trees.

253 Louise: More fig trees like you‘re saying Denmark and this bird needs ( hand gesture
to Juliet)
Juliet: A mate then it could breed more.
Louise: So it could breed more to increase the population.
Denmark: And make a machin e one with a remote control.
Louise: So that is the story of the Coxen‘s fig -parrot. That is what has happened to
the beautiful Coxen‘s fig -parrot.

Written by author for study based on information detailed in
The State of Queensland, Environmental Protec tion Agency (2001). Coxen’s fig -parrot
cyclopsitta diophthalma coxeni recovery plan 2001 -2005. Retrieved July 27 , 2007 , from
http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/publications/p01379aa.pdf/Coxens_figparrot_iCyclopsitta_diopht
halma_coxeni/i_recovery_plan_20012005.pdf

254 Appendix G: Workshop Four Story – Two Brothers (West African folktale)
Louise: This story, my friends, is about a rich cocoa farmer. (Who knows what you
can make out of cocoa? Denmark?)
Denmark: Milo MILO -O!
Louise: (Put up your hand if you can th ink of something else that you can make with
cocoa? Something that I think a lot of you like that begins with ‗ch‘ -)
FC: Chocolate.
Louise: So now we know what this farmer was growing. He had lots of plants
growing cocoa and he had two sons. When the tim e came for the cocoa
farmer to die, he asked his two sons to come close to him whilst he was
lying on his bed. And he called his eldest son, ―Eldest son you may have my
land and all my riches and what is most precious to me, your younger
brother. Look afte r him as I have looked after you.‖ Then the old man
breathed his last breath.
When the funeral and the forty days of mourning was over, the elder brother
changed. You know what that eldest son did when the forty days were over?
Denmark: What?
Louise: He started to boss his younger brother around. ―Go and get my dinner‖
―Wash my clothes‖ (What else could he tell him to do?)
UN: Clean his clothes
Louise: ―CLEAN MY CLOTHES‖
Molly: Umm wash up
Louise: ―WASH UP THE DISHES!‖
Declan: Make the beds
Louise: ―MAKE THE BEDS‖
Denmark: Umm he could clean the car
Louise: ―CLEAN THE CAR!‖
Denmark: (laughter )
Louise: ―CLEAN THE HOUSE – GO TO THE MARKET TO GET SOME MORE
FOOD!‖ He was always telling that younger brother what to do. If you were
that younger brother ho w would you feel?
FC: Sad
Louise: That‘s how he felt. He felt that life was unfair and he wondered was that
what his father really asked his older brother to do. He missed his father.
Life was bad. He was so sad about it that you know what —he found it har d
to eat and he found it hard to sleep. That‘s how sad he was. And at night

255 time the older brother slept in a bed and the younger brother slept on a mat
on the floor. When he was lying on the floor crying himself to sleep, one
night he heard some scratchin g. He sat up and wondered what it was. You
know what it was? Near a sack of rice at the end of his brother‘s bed on the
floor was a mouse. He watched it and the mouse did a big jump up onto the
end of his brother‘s bed then the mouse looked up towards the ceiling where
a basket of nuts hung. The mouse with all its might leapt up to the basket.
That younger brother thought that was amazing what that mouse did. That
tiny little mouse could jump so high and you know what that mouse did?
FC: No, what?
Louise: That mouse picked up one nut and put it in like this ( tongue used to poke
cheek out ), then another nut in the other cheek, then another nut up here
(tongue used to poke upper lip out )
Denmark: (Imitates mouth contortions )
Louise: So it had three nuts in his mouth and then with his full mouth he leapt down
and landed on his brother‘s bed and then went under his brother‘s bed and
disappeared. That younger brother thought that was the most amazing thing
he had ever seen. He thought, ―WOW! You don‘t have to b e rich or big to
achieve great things that little tiny mouse jumped such a huge distance. I‘m
going to tell people. This is an important lesson. I‘m going to market
tomorrow to tell everyone about this mouse. As soon as the sun woke in the
morning he washe d himself and got dressed so he was ready to go to the
market. When he got to the market he started to tell everyone about the
mouse. But you see all the people in the market were used to him coming to
the market just to buy things. They always saw him in raggedy clothes and
they always saw him doing the jobs so they thought of him like a beggar. So
they thought, ―What‘s this boy telling a story. He just wants attention. He‘s
just jealous of his rich brother —making up stories to get attention —ha ha
ha!‖ the y laughed. They didn‘t believe his story. ―Silly story about a flying
mouse. Hahaha!‖ How do you think the younger brother felt about that?
FC: Very sad.
Louise: Very sad and you know what —the elder brother heard what the younger
brother was doing and he was angry. ―You are bringing shame on our family
name —making up stories!‖ The younger brother thought, ―If my older
brother treats me so bad and the people in the market don‘t listen to me. You
know that little mouse taught me an important lesson maybe som e other

256 animals have important lessons to teach me. I‘m going to live in the forest
and learn from the animals.‖ So he went off to live in the forest. The next
night the older brother was lying in his bed awake because he was worrying
about his farms and h ow he could make so much money, when he heard that
scratching noise and he looked and he saw the little mouse. He watched it
jump on to the end of his bed and it looked up towards the ceiling and with
all its might it leapt up onto the basket.
Denmark: AGA IN!
Louise: Again and it took one nut and another nut (puff cheeks out)
(Scott, David, Finlay, Liam all puff their cheeks out )
Louise: Until it had a mouthful of nuts then it jumped back down onto the bed then
disappeared under the older brother‘s bed. ―O h this is a very interesting
thing I will tell everyone in the market place about this.‖ The next morning
in the market place he met all his friends —all his rich friends and he started
to tell them about the mouse.
―How high did it jump?‖
―It jumped ten me tres!‖
―Oh‖
They thought he was so knowledgeable, so clever and so good at watching
and observing. They thought he was a wise man for sharing this story. And
soon people would come to the older brother to ask him for advice to help
them with their problems because they thought he was so wise for noticing
this mouse, but it was same the story that the younger brother had told.
Now in the forest the younger brother was learning many many things from
the forest animals. He was learning how to keep warm when it is cold
Fergie: Get a jumper.
Louise: Well they didn‘t have jumpers in the forest.
Denmark: You could make jumpers out of the forest.
Louise: I wonder how the animals could teach him how to keep warm.
Denmark: By snuggling in a hole.
Louise: (Do you w ant to choose two friends and show us how to do that?)
Denmark: (nodded ) Declan
Louise: So Denmark is going to choose two friends to show us how to snuggle in a
hole to keep warm. So Declan and
Denmark: Charlie

257 (He directed Declan and Charlie to stand fac ing each other and stretch their
arms up to touch finger tips – creating an arch – or a hole and Denmark
went under )
Louise: Ahh! So two animals making the hole and a smaller animal going in it. Is
that how it works?
Denmark: No.
Louise: (Well show it aga in and we will look at it more closely. What does it look
like to
you? What does it look like to you David over there? How are they keeping
him warm?)
David: By putting their arms out.
Louise: (Using their arms to make a shelter?)
Fergie: But there are some gaps.
Louise: (There are some gaps do you think they should come in closer. That‘s a
good idea. Good tip Fergie.)
(Declan & Charlie takes steps closer )
Denmark: That was digging a hole and snuggling in it.
Louise: That was a good idea. One of the oth er lessons that he learnt from the
animals was what to do if you have a sore —if you have been cut.
Fergie: You could kiss it better
Louise: (Can you show us how they would do this with a friend. Who‘s the sore
one? Stand up now you tell Molly what she has to do.)
(Molly stands up and Fergie whispers into Molly’s ear Fergie points to
forehead and Molly kisses it in the air. )
Louise: How did they make it better?
Teacher: What happened Nick?
Nick: Fixed it with a kiss.
Louise: With a kiss —kissed it better. Do animals kiss?
Denmark: No. Oh yeah they do!
Louise: Another lesson he learnt from the animals was what to do when you are very
very hot. (Have you thought of an idea?)
Ebony: Go to the river.
Louise: Maybe elephants.
Denmark: And that could be the wa ter, lying down that blue.
Louise: (Yes so imagine the river starts here.)
Teacher: Off you go Finlay, David & Ebony.

258 (They hold out one arm for a trunk )
Louise: (That‘s it splash around. And you might even spray water from your trunk
over your head to c ool your body down.)
Louise: So the younger brother learnt all of these things from the animals and he
also learnt what to do when you get sick. He learnt about a tree called the
fever tree that the leaves from this tree can heal you. Now whilst the
younge r brother was living in the forest with the animals he learnt their
language. He learnt how to talk to them, to listen to them, watch them, and
learn many things. And one day the animals came over to him and they told
him through their language that there was trouble back in his village and that
he should go back because many of the people in his village were sick. So
the younger brother wasted no time and went and collected leaves from the
All: Fever tree
Louise: And he walked quickly back to his village then he got a pot of water and he
boiled it with the leaves in it and then scooped up cups for the people who
were sick and they drank up the tea from the fever tree leaves. (Handed out
imaginary cups of fever tree tea). The village was so quiet because e veryone
was so sick. There was no more laughter from the children. Nobody was in
the market place —it was so quiet. Everyone needed the tea. (Drink up your
tea everyone. ) So they all drank up their tea and slowly by the next day they
started to feel much mu ch better. People were so happy to feel better.
Everyone met in the market place and started to talk about the younger
brother. How he helped them and how good they felt. (We are going to
pretend that we are in the market place. So everyone standing up no w
pretend we are at a market place walking around go to buy some fruit now.
When I shake the calabash I want you to find a friend and tell them what
you think of the younger brother.)
Declan: His father died then his older brother started bossing him aro und
Nick: His Dad got lost
Louise: (David what did you say or hear others say?)
David: He‘s nice.
Louise: He‘s nice yeah. That‘s what they were saying : ‖Isn‘t he great he saved us
all. He healed us . What a great healer he is. ― Is that what you heard?
Everyone was so happy that he had come back and he had healed them all.
And you know what? You know what the younger brother did when he
heard people saying these things.
David: He smiled.

259 Louise: He smiled and then he said, ‖You know I learnt this a long time ago from a
tiny little mouse —you don‘t need to big or rich —what you need is
determination to achieve great things. ‖
Nick: What‘s determination?
Louise: It means to keep trying.
Teacher: To keep going and going – don‘t give up.
Louise: You believe in yourself. Yes I can do it!

Adapted from: Sorsy, I. (1995). Two brothers: A story from West Africa. In M. Medlicott &
A. Akintola (Eds.), The river that went to the sky (pp. 65 -70). London: Kingfisher.

260 Appendix H: Workshop Six Story – Iqbal’s Story
Louise: (Everyone close your eyes and I want you to imagine.) Imagine a room
which just has a dirt floor and a bed that‘s made out of wood but there‘s no
mattress, there‘s just string; strong string across and some sheets on it. This
is Iqbal‘s room. Iqb al is a boy from Pakistan and he shares his room with his
Mother and his sister . There are two other beds in that room as well, just the
same that have a wooden frame and string over the frame. Now the only
thing that Iqbal owned —the only toy that Iqbal ow ned is a cricket bat,
which he kept under his bed. In their house they have another room, that‘s
the kitchen where they make their food. Their house is made out of mud.
Mud walls —the mud is set hard —it‘s like bricks. (Open your eyes.)
This is story of Iqba l. Iqbal lived in Pakistan —a country next door to India.
And when he was five his family was so poor that they sent him to work in a
carpet factory. There he is ( pointing to projected slide of Iqbal aged 5 ) there
he is weaving a carpet —he did this by tying knots. And he has to work
there as soon as the sun comes up, till when the sun goes down. It‘s a very
long day. He doesn‘t get to go to school. He doesn‘t have time to play.
UN: He has to work always?
Louise: He comes home so tired and he doesn‘t get t o eat all day. When he gets
home he collapses in his bed and says, ―Mama! Please bring me some
bread‖. And he eats some bread then falls asleep. He spends all his time
working very long days —not getting much money —just 50 cents a day.
That‘s less than one dollar for a long day‘s work. His family is so poor that
when his Mother gets sick and she needs an operation they d on‘t have the
money for the operation and the only place that they knew where they could
get the money is from Ghullah : the man who owns th e carpet factory. They
ask him can they borrow some money —could they have Iqbal‘s wages in
advance. He says , ―yes‖, s o Iqbal‘s mother can have her operation. Here is
Iqbal still working at age ten (point to projected image of Iqbal ). But now
that they owe money to Ghullah, Ghullah thinks that he owns Iqbal. There is
a big demand for carpets. Lots of people wanting to buy carpets, so Ghullah
comes around to Iqbal‘s house in the middle of the night and wakes up Iqbal
and drags him back to the factory half asl eep. Poor Iqbal is so tired. He can‘t
even sleep anymore. And you know what this factory owner does? Here‘s
the fork ( view slide of carpet fork ) that they use to push the carpet threads

261 down. Sometimes when he is very cross —to wake Iqbal up, he hits him with
the fork. ( Let‘s see what this looks like.)
Max: Can I be the boy who‘s sleeping?
Louise: Okay.
Max: (Raises fist jubilantly )
Louise: (to Charlie ) (And you can be the factory owner: Ghullah .)
Louise: (to Max ) So you go into sleeping position as Iq bal and ( to Charlie ) you‘re
going to be Ghullah , you come to his house and you wake him up. ( Charlie
gently rubs Max’s back ). Come on pull his arm, come on, that‘s it tell him:
―You have to come and make more carpets.‖)
Charlie: Go and make some more car pets!
Louise: (And Max you wake up —you look a bit sleepy. Get up. Stand up. Sorry let
me have a close look a t this scene. ( to Max ) You look sleepy ( demonstrate
drooped posture and facial expression ). (to Jack ) You look serious and
strong, you‘re pulling h im. Then back at the factory. (to Jack ) You stand
here. Let‘s make the factory scene. Everyone is working in the factory. So
what we need to do is we all need to be in three rows, sitting on the floor
squatting do you remember how he was sitting? So there will be seven in
one row facing that way and seven in another row facing that way and seven
in another row facing that way.)
Max: Also I have to do it.
Louise: (to Max ) (You can stay where you are sitting. Okay so you are working
hard tying lots of knots . And G hullah you are fierce and say, ―Work harder‖.
Charlie: Work harder!!
Teacher: (Your bodies are listless and exhausted – their flopping looking out at the
windows wishing you were out there playing – exhausted – unhappy – tired
– you‘ve been doing this for years day in day out – you haven‘t played sport
for weeks.) (Tony, Max, Ella, Molly sit with very floppy bodies – nearly
falling over with exhaustion ).
Louise: (What are you thinking , when you are tying the knots?)
Denmark: Speed—speed .
Molly: I‘m imagining what it would be like to play .
Fergie: Go really fast so you can do anything you like after you did it really speedy .
Louise: So Iqbal works like this many years . Then one day on e of his friends was
very sick, he had a high fever . Some of yo u have been sick lately so you
know what it is like to have a high fever and you stay home from school .

262 Well this boy stayed home from work in the carpet factory, but Ghullah was
so angry that he went around to his house and dragged him in and he said,
―I‘M THE ONE HERE WHO SAYS WHEN AND WHEN YOU CAN‘T
WORK. NOT YOU!‖ And he forced this boy to work even though he was
so sick. Imagine what that would feel like. When you are sick you don‘t feel
like doing anything —let alone work. And when Iqbal saw this he de cided at
that he point he had had enough of the cruel treatment from Ghullah. So then
he started to work out plans for how he could escape. What he would do
when Ghullah wasn‘t there —he would say to the person who was the
foreman ( managing the carpet facto ry at that time ), ―I need to go to the
toilet. ‖ He would then go outside and some of his friends would say the
same thing then they would run off down to the canal or the fields and they
would play. They would have such good time playing together. Then one
day when Iqbal g ot up very early in the morning to go to the factory, he met
these people that were on a truck and they told him that what Ghullah was
doing was against the law that Iqbal didn‘t have to work. That Ghullah did
not own hi m. He had the right to not work . Iqbal listened very carefully for
this was important information . And he went to a meeting that they had and
he told them about his experience of working in a carpet factory —how cruel
Ghullah was to Iqbal and his friends. Iqbal told this to a big crowd. And they
gave him a special letter. I t was called a freedom letter . So he took it to
Ghullah to say that he was free . He did not have to work, so he went back to
the carpet factory and he handed this letter to Ghullah and you know what
Ghullah said?
Declan: You have to stay .
Louise: That‘s right he said , ―I don‘t care about that letter .‖ He even ripped it up. ―I
don‘t care about that letter . You have to stay here . Your family owe me
money , so you are working for me.‖ Now fortunately these peo ple that he
met knew that there might be trouble so they came to the factory and they
helped Iqbal to get away . And they invited Iqbal to their school . This is their
school ( view slide of school ) and they called it , ―Our own school ‖ It was for
children li ke Iqbal who used to work in factories. Iqbal was ten years of age
when he first went to school, that‘s much older than you isn‘t it? He love d it.
There he is with his book ( pointing to projected slide of Iqbal at school ). He
just had one book and there‘s his bag. He loved going to school and the
other things that he would do now is that he would help lots of other
children to escape or find a way to get out of having to work in factories. He

263 helped so many other children that by the time he was twelve he w as invited
to go to Sweden, which is way over the other side of the world , in Europe .
He went there to speak to people all over the world about how children are
forced to work in factories.
Max: Also when he went —did he go to India?
Louise: Ahh! Not that I know of. M aybe he might have had to go their to fly out of
Pakistan. I‘m not sure. When they were getting ready for their big trip to go
to Sweden, which was so exciting for Iqbal for he had only ever travelled to
the next village. He hadn‘t been out of his country, l et alone gone on a
plane. He didn‘t have a passport. He didn‘t even have a birth certificate. So
they had to do lots of things to get ready and then they heard that he was
going to be given a prize. They told Iqbal . He had no idea what a pri ze was.
He had never heard about prizes. No one had ever noticed the good things
that he had done. He was getting a prize for helping so many other children
who were working in factories to freedom. So not only was he going to
Sweden, but now he was going to America as well. There he is protesting
for his other friends ( slide of Iqbal behind a banner ) who are still forced to
work in factories. He‘s holding a sign that says : ―Don‘t buy children‘s
blood ‖. Some children work so hard in these factories that th ey are hurting.
Declan: Carpets should be made by adults .
Louise: Here he is at his prize ceremony ( pointing to slide of Iqbal receiving Reebok
Human Rights Prize ). He‘s all dressed up getting his prize and he‘s showing
them a carpet, like the carpets he would have made. There‘s Iqbal being
interviewed (slide of Iqbal being interviewed on national US television ).
When Iqbal was in these other countries he got interviewed by newspaper
reporters on TV. He went to go and visit schools and told them about wh at
was happening in his country and in America he even got to be person of the
week by the TV station they call ABC. What I mean is that they voted him
the person of the week , so everyone got to know about him . When he came
back to Pakistan, he was a hero. Everone was so excited . All the people in
his village, his friends and family came around to meet him. (Max do you
still want to play the role of Iqbal?)
Max: Yes
Louise: (Fergie you stand up and you could be a person who has come to see Iqbal
come home, so you put these flowers over his head.) ( Max stands proudly
receiving flowers and Fergie smiles as she places them around his neck ).
And everyone was so excited to see him and then Iqbal said his little speech

264 that he gave at the schools that he visited. He said, ―THE CHILDREN
SHOULD HAVE PENS NOT TOOLS! ‖
Max: The children should have pens not tools! ( stands proudly )
Louise: And then he said, ―For the children are‖
Max: For the children are
All: FREE!!
Louise: And they all cheered yay!! ( clapping )
All: Yay!!! ( clapping )
(Max bows )
Louise: And this is the story of Iqbal.

Story c reated from information from:
The World Children's Prize for the Rights of the Child. (n.d). The World Children's Prize for
the Rights of the Child 2000: Iqbal Masih . Re trieved August 27, 2007, from
http://www.childrensworld.org/prizelaurates/page.html?pid=344

265 Appendix I: Workshop Seven Story – Craig’s Story
When Craig Kielburger was 12 years old he read about Iqbal Masih in the newspaper. Craig saw
him as a hero for spe aking out about child labour. He saw that Iqbal had lost his freedom to
laugh, to play, to go to school by being forced to work in the carpet factory. And then by
speaking out against child labour Craig saw that as a young person, Iqbal had made a differen ce.
Craig asked his parents if Iqbal’s Story was really true, if children were forced to work in
other countries, ―Read up on it‖, they answered. Craig then went to the library to find out more.
He also contacted different organisations that help people wh o are being treated unfairly. He
discovered that there were more than 250 million child labourers in the world, many working in
slave -like conditions. Craig new he had to do something.
He asked his teacher if I could tell the class something. ―Go ahead‖, h e answered. Then
Craig told his classmates about child labour and about Iqbal. After school, twenty of his
classmates met at his house. They decided to hold a garage sale and sold juice and other things to
raise money to stop child labour.
When Craig was doing his research, he spoke to a man called Allam who was about to
go on a big trip over to India, Nepal, Pakistan and Thailand. Allam said to Craig, ―If you really
want to know more about the lives of these children, then you should visit them. You shou ld
come with me to India, Pakistan, Nepal and Thailand.‖ Craig was only 12, do you think his Mum
and Dad would let him go? Craig couldn‘t stop thinking about this trip. But his mother said, ―No
way, it‘s out of the question.‖ But then Alam promised to tak e care of Craig on the seven -week
trip to India, Pakistan, Nepal and Thailand. Craig‘s parents eventually agreed for Craig to
accompany Allam on the trip through Asia.
During his trip, Craig met a boy who had been seriously injured by an explosion in a
firework factory, where he carried out dangerous work without any protective clothing. And
Craig tried to make bricks with the children working in the brick factory, and they laughed
together when his bricks fell apart. In India, Craig helped some children free from a very cruel
man, who said he ‗owned‘ them and forced them to work long hard days in his carpet factory. In
the Philippines, Craig talked to an eight -year-old boy who had never set foot outside a rubbish
dump where he was born and worked all day, every day searching for useable pieces of rubbish.
The only thing Craig felt he could promise these kids he met was that he would tell their stories
to anyone who will listen.
After this trip Craig wrote about this experience in a book that he called Free the
Children . That is what he felt he really wanted to do was free these children. He met with his
group of friends and they called themselves as a group: Free the children , as well. And do you
know at first they had a garage sale and then they decided to do things like a petition. And Craig
and his schoolmates signed petitions demanding that child labour be stopped and faxed the

266 petition to world leaders, such as their own prime minister in Canada. They raised funds for
Free The Children by holding garage sales, car washes, and bake sales totally run by
children. No one in the organisation is older than 18. Craig and Free The Children worked
to ensure that their country Canada would label rugs from India, Pakistan and Nepal, so that
people buying a carpet in a shop would know that it was not made by children (the Rugmark
label). Unfortunately, some adults thought Craig and other members of Free The Children
were too young to be telling them what they should and should not do. But this did not stop
Craig an d his friends. They knew that what they were doing was right, that they were helping
other children in other countries to be free from slavery, free from cruel treatment. Helping
these children to have the right to laugh, the right to play, the right to go to school. And there
were many children and adults that did listen to them.
Within two years, Free the Children had raised enough money to help build a centre
that provided housing and schooling for Pakistani children who had escaped from slavery.
And som e sporting goods manufacturers agreed not to buy soccer balls stitched by Pakistani
children. Craig and Free the Children believed that they needed to tell more and more
children in schools all over the world about how children in some countries were being
forced to work. Children understood and saw a need to do something, they collected school
kits and health kits to send to these children.
As Free The Children grew, Craig travelled the world, meeting with world leaders
and Nobel Peace Prize winners to tal k about stopping child labour, and he received
international awards because he had helped so many children free from slavery. Craig found
true heroes among the street children and child workers he met in poor countries. "They
impress me the most because th ey never give up hope. They have this amazing spirit about
them, and this amazing sense of friendship where they take care of each other. They've
taught me more than any meeting with a TV star or world leader ever could." Free the
Children has grown into t he largest international network of children helping children, with
more than one million young people involved in 45 countries. They take action on child –
labour, children and poverty, war -affected children, education and children's rights.
Craig has now grown up. Here‘s Craig as an adult and he has received a number of
awards for all his hard work for helping children all over the world. To the children that he met in
all these different places that had really sad lives he said to them, ―You know all tha t I can
promise is that I will keep telling your story‖. He thought it was important that he told their
stories to lots of people that many people got to hear how hard it was for them. And sometimes
when he was telling these stories and asking adults to he lp, some of the adults said, ―You‘re just a
kid I shouldn‘t have to listen to you. Why are you telling us what to do?‖ You know what he
didn‘t give up. He kept trying. He kept telling people and there were lots of children and lots of

267 adults that did liste n to him. So this is Craig‘s story about his journey of helping children like
Iqbal.

Story c reated from information from:
Free the Children. (2007). History . Retrieved September 1, 2007, from
http://www.freethechildren.com/aboutus/ftchistory.php
Kielbu rger, C. (1998). Free the Children: A young man fights against child labour and
proves that children can change the world . New York: Harper Collins Publishers.
Peaceheroes.com. (n.d.). Craig Kielburger biography. Retrieved September 2, 2007, from
http:// www.peaceheroes.com/CraigKielburger/craigkielburgerbio.htm

268 Appendix J: Week Eight Story – The Rich Factory Owner And The Wise Old Woman
Long ago, there was a rich factory owner who ruled over a large factory. The factory owner lived
high on a mounta in in his mansion. From his window, he could look down on his factories which
surrounded his mansion on three sides. On the fourth side, the factory owner could see the sea, an
endless blue ribbon stretching out toward the horizon. It was a beautiful view from the mansion,
and so the factory owner assumed that everyone lived as happy a life as he. However, amidst the
children who worked in the factory there was great unhappiness. They worked such long hours,
hardly ate, so they were starving and had no time for any enjoyment be it simply to laugh, or to
play. Little rain had fallen in more than a year. The drought brought hunger because the crops
were meagre that year. The people were hungry and feared starvation. Yet the factory owner's
pantry was well -stocked with foods from all over the world, including a hundred different
delicacies. He could have whatever he desired. The factory owner was unaware of what was
happening in his factory because he rarely spoke with his workers and did not care much about
their lives.
The factory children and their families were worried. They were starving and
miserable. They knew that the factory owner had a mansion filled with food and gold. They
gathered and talked about what to do. Some people suggested that they approac h the factory
owner and ask for food but everyone was afraid to go to the mansion.
Finally, in desperation, a wise old woman who cared deeply about the children
volunteered to go speak with the factory owner. "Why not?" she reasoned, "I am old and will
soon die, anyway. If I don't die of old age, I will surely die of starvation." And so she set out,
trudging up the mountain to the mansion.
The factory owner did not know this woman, so he rudely asked, ―Why are you here?‖
The wise old woman described to the factory owner what was happening to the children of his
factory, how they were starving for food, starving for exercise, starving for fresh air. ―They are
children and should be able to play and to learn.‖ The factory owner yawned looking bored and
replied, "That is not my concern. I don't feel hungry and I don't feel their hunger."
The wise old woman could feel anger welling up inside her. She thought she would
explode with anger, but she realised that this would accomplish nothing. She thought quick ly.
Then she responded, ―I see your point, Sir. And, naturally, you are right. And just so that you
know I mean you only well, I would like to invite you to come fishing with me. I have heard that
you love to go fishing and I know the most wonderful spot. The water is stiff with fish, and you
will have a wonderful time.‖
Now the factory owner couldn't resist an invitation like this, and so he went with the
wise old woman. They got into the wise old woman's tiny, dilapidated, rowboat. The wise old
woman ro wed hard, and the factory owner rested, sunning himself. Finally, after an hour of

269 rowing along the shore, they arrived at a beautiful little inlet. The factory owner looked around,
but saw nothing but rocks and seaweed. ―This is the spot from which we hea d out to sea, Sir‖
said the old wise old woman and she rowed straight out away from shore for another half hour.
Then the old wise old woman pulled her oars into the boat, took an awl out of her back pocket,
and began chipping a hole in the bottom of the b oat under her seat.
―What are you doing, old woman?‖ exclaimed the factory owner in alarm. ―Stop that
this instant! Do you realise what you're doing? You're going to sink the boat!‖ ―Yes, I know.
That is what I intend to do,‖ responded the wise old woman quietly. ―I am trying t o sink the boat.
I am so hungry, like all the people in your factory, that I want to die.‖ ―But I do not want to die!!‖
shouted the factory owner. ―No, Sir. I know that. That is why I am only making a hole under my
seat in the boat, at my end of the boat. What happens at your end of the boat is not my concern.‖
The factory owner's anger turned to laughing, and then to sadness and he eventually
spoke, ―I see what you are saying, wise woman. You have made your point well. I have clos ed
my eyes to what others feel because I did not feel it myself. Please row me back to shore —
safely —and I will open my food stores to my workers. And I thank you, wise old woman, for
your great wisdom in teaching me a lesson I sorely needed to learn.‖
The wise old woman rowed the leaking boat back to shore as water slowly trickled into
the boat. In desperation, the factory owner helped with his bare hands. When they made it ashore
the factory owner did two things: he promptly arranged for food to be share d amongst his
workers; and he invited the wise old woman to be his trusted advisor. She gladly accepted the
role and advised the factory owner to:
―Build a school for the children —they should not be working. They need time to grow, to play
and to learn.‖
"Ask adults to work for you and pay them well"
―Provide meals for your workers everyday —then they will have energy to work.‖
And so the factory owner and the wise old woman became good friends, and frequently met to
talk business.

Adapted from the folktal e ―The king and the fisherman‖
Jacobs Sife, D. (2007). The king and the fisherman . Retrieved June 6, 2007, from
http://www.donnajacobsife.com

270
Appendix K: Workshop Ten Story – Two Blocks
Once there was a place where children went to school to play with blocks. There was one class
with one teacher. However, a small group of five children had most of the blocks, whilst most of
the children had only five blocks to play altogether. The five children who had most of the blocks
were happy. They could make wha tever they wanted. They did not notice the other children were
miserably sad, as they struggled to share five blocks. These five children with most of the blocks
were so noisy that the other children were scared of approaching them to ask for some blocks.
Besides that is the way it had always been. No one knew any different.
Then one day a new girl (Mukti) arrived and she could see quite clearly that it was unfair
that one small group of children had most of the blocks, whilst the rest only had five blocks to
share between them. She told the teacher but the teacher said, ―That is the way it is here and has
always been. Go and play with the others.‖
Mukti was puzzled. Why did the teacher not see how unfair this was and why did the
children with so few not sa y anything. She joined them and suggested: ―Why don‘t you ask those
children for more blocks?‖
―This is the way it is. There is nothing we can do about it‖
―No it is not fair. You can‘t even build anything with just five, whilst they can make
whatever they like. We must do something. Let‘s think of things we can do.‖
And so they tried to think of ideas, and slowly the children made suggestions.
David: We could really really really ask them for the blocks.
Declan: We could take all their blocks away so the y know what it feels like to not have a lot
of blocks.
―Let‘s try some of these ideas,‖ encouraged Mukti. First they tried really really asking
but they didn‘t listen. Then they tried suggesting that they not have many blocks so they know
what it feels li ke, but they didn‘t listen to that suggestion either.
Now the children with many blocks soon developed feelings of suspicion towards the
children with few. They realised that all the other children sought after their blocks, so they
started to carry them around with them. Each child had six pockets to keep six blocks safe at all
times. They then walked around at recess, lunch, and playtime clutching onto their pockets to
make sure that they were safe. Quite quickly these children grew very tired of being a lert to the
safe-keeping of their blocks, not to mention it was very uncomfortable to sit down. They then
approached their teacher, ―We need to keep our blocks safe. Please help us. We need tighter
security. We need a locked cupboard‖. So the teacher had p adlocks installed on the block
cupboard. These five children were then given a key to the block cupboard that they each hung

271 on a string around their neck. This was much easier to protect than six blocks each in their
pockets.
Mukti was shocked and the oth er children felt now that there was no hope of having
access to more blocks. Though in time many accepted that they had five blocks and devised
many different ways of using five blocks between twenty children. Then one day the lock to the
five children‘s blocks jammed.
―WE WANT BLOCKS, WE WANT BLOCKS‖, they demanded bitterly. They stood
strong and fierce in front of the other children and demanded: ―GIVE US YOUR BLOCKS!‖.
They managed to get three blocks but this was so little they could still do nothing with so
few. Whilst the children who were left with two blocks, took turns of the two blocks as they
played a game of one potato, two potato. Then they thought of another really great game with a
song, a singing game, Obwisana, where you pass a rock or in this case two blocks around as you
keep to the beat of the song by patting your hands on your knees. Obwi -sa-na-sa-na-na – Obwi –
sa-na-sa-na-na – Obwi -sa-na-sa-na-na – Obwi -sa-na-sa-na-na Obwi -sa-na-sa-na-na Obwi -sa-na-
sa-na-na Obwi -sa-na-sa-na-na Obwi -sa-na-sa-na-na.
Meanwhile the children with three struggled, pulling and tugging at the blocks, ―I want it
to go here.‖ ―No I want it to go here!‖ Then one of them heard the other children singing and he
turned his head and saw how they were having so much fun with just two blocks. ―I can‘t believe
it. Look at them, they are having fun with just two blocks‖
―Obwi -sa-na-sa-na-na Obwi -sa-na-sa-na-na Obwi -sa-na-sa-na-na Obwi -sa-na-sa-na-na
Obwi -sa-na-sa-na-na Obwi -sa-na-sa-na-na.‖
The group of five wanted to j oin in so they approached the large group and said, ―Can
we join in?‖ Mukti asked the large group, ―Shall we let them in?‖
―Yeah come on over. Bring your blocks. Lets go —Obwi -sa-na-sa-na-na Obwi -sa-na-sa-
na-na Obwi -sa-na-sa-na-na Obwi -sa-na-sa-na-na Obwi -sa-na-sa-na-na Obwi -sa-na-sa-na-na
Obwi -sa-na-sa-na-na Obwi -sa-na-sa-na-na!‖ And so all the children learnt that you can have fun
with a few blocks —just five blocks or even two.

Source: Written by author at the time of the study.

272 Appendix L: Workshop 11 Story – The GREED Machine
Imagine a world where there are only two countries, one called Greenland and the other
called Black‘n‘white. They both began in the same way, as land covered with trees and
animals. With people who only ate from the plants and animals what they needed. But then
one day one man from Greenland invented a machine that could chop down plants and trees
fast and make them into food, clothing, houses, furniture —in fact anything. They called this
machine the Great Reproducer of Everyth ing that Everyone Desires (or GREED for short).
They loved this machine and everything that it could make for them. So the people from
Greenland had houses now with furniture, they wore clothing, they had a tremendous variety
of food, and they had toys and gadgets that could do this and gadgets that could do that.
However, there were now fewer trees and many of the animals died, as there was
less food and shelter for them, but each person from Greenland now owned many things. The
Greenlanders realised that they needed more trees and animals to be able to continue to make
more things with their fabulous GREED machine. So two Greenlanders travelled to
Black‘n‘white to offer the people fine clothes and furniture in return for more trees and
animals. The people from Black‘n‘white agreed for they too desired the beautiful clothes and
fine furniture.
Then to keep the GREED machine working they needed more workers so they asked
the people from Black‘n‘white to work for the GREED machine, but paid them little in
return. The people from Black‘n‘white now had few plants and animals to feed on so they
now relied on money from the owners of the GREED machine to purchase food that the
GREED machine made. They were paid such little money it was not enough for just the
adults to work so they had to ask their children to work as well.
Now everyone was working long hours so they could have what they needed to stay
alive in Black‘n‘white land. Whilst people also worked in the GREED machine country but
not for as long and they were paid more money so they could buy what they needed and
what they wanted. The wealthiest of them all was the inventor and owner of the GREED
machine, for every time people bought something that was made by the GREED machine,
most of the money went to h im.
Then one day the GREED machine inventor was coming out of his mansion for his
morning walk when he met a beggar, named Mukti from Black‘n‘white. He asked the
beggar, ―What do you want?‖ Mukti laughed and said, ―You are asking me as though you
can give me what I want or desire!‖ The GREED machine inventor was offended. He said,
―Of course I can give you what you desire for I am the inventor of the Great Reproducer of
Everything that Everyone Desires. What is it? Just tell me and I will give it to you.‖

273 And the beggar said, ―Think twice before you promise anything.‖
―I will fulfil anything you ask. I am the very powerful GREED machine inventor, what can
you possibly desire that I cannot give to you?‖
The beggar said, ―It is a very simple desire. You see this begging bowl? Can you fill
it with something?‖
The GREED machine inventor said, ―Of course!‖ He called one of his assistants and
told him, ―Fill this begging bowl with money.‖ The assistant went and got some money and
poured it into the bowl, an d it disappeared. And he poured more and more, and the moment
he would pour it, it would disappear. And the begging bowl remained always empty.
Everyone who lived and worked in the GREED machine inventor‘s whole palace gathered.
By and by the rumour went t hroughout the whole country, and a huge crowd gathered. The
prestige of the GREED machine inventor was at stake. He said to his assistants, ―If all my
wealth is lost, I am ready to lose it, for I will not be defeated by this beggar.‖
Diamonds, pearls and emeralds were poured into the begging bowl but as soon as
they entered the bowl they disappeared. All the treasures of the GREED machine inventor
were nearly gone. The begging bowl seemed to be bottomless. Everything that was put into
it—immediately disapp eared. Finally it was the evening, and the people were standing there
in utter silence. The GREED machine inventor dropped at the feet of the beggar and
admitted his defeat. He could not meet his promise to Mukti. In desperation he begged, ―Just
tell me on e thing. You are victorious but before you leave, just fulfil my curiosity. What is
the begging bowl made of?‖ Mukti laughed and said, ―It is made up of the human mind.
There is no secret. It is simple made up of human wants and as you have just seen they are
bottomless.‖
The GREED machine inventor sighed as he realised what he had done by inventing
the GREED machine. He had triggered all human minds to want and want and want and to
continue to want but the number of plants and animals did not go on foreve r, and they did
not grow as fast as the GREED machine could make things. And so the GREED machine
inventor called a meeting to work out a plan for all the people, animals, and plants to live
together harmoniously.
―I will invite everyone from Black -n-white and everyone from Greenland to the meeting.
Please everyone come, we need to have a meeting. Our countries are in ruin.‖
Declan: We could get the GREED machine to pick some seeds from the trees and
we could plant them and make more forest.
Max: You can share, because the animals from Green world to Black -n-white
world. We make a line with a stick. The animals in different countries, they
have each more food to have.
Denmark: How would they do that?

274 Declan: It could be a bridge.
Louise (as GREED Machine Inventor): That‘s a very interesting idea – any other plans?
Juliet: With the things the GREED machine has made, you give them to this land
(points to Black -n-white ) because they don‘t have much.
Louise (as GREED Machine Inventor): Some of the fine cloth es and furniture.
Juliet: Yep.
Louise (as GREED Machine Inventor): Is anyone else thinking of some great plans. I
realise that I have been wrong in creating the GREED machine. I realise that
my invention has caused the problems and I am terribly sorry a bout this but
I am now trying to see if we can make things better and I‘m listening to your
ideas. Any more ideas?
Max: Make new —make new machines —different machines that are electric. The
animals from the country what died —bring them back to life.
Louise (as GREED Machine Inventor): A machine that can make animals come back to life.
Max: Yes!
Peter: WOW!
Declan: No one had thought of that.
Patrick: We can‘t let the animals die.
Louise (as GREED Machine Inventor): So what can we do to stop the animals dying?
Juliet: My idea was if you put more food back, more animals will come back. If
animals are coming they can breed.
Louise (as GREED Machine Inventor): Okay well thank you very much for coming to the
meeting. We‘ll all need to start working on the pla ns.
Denmark: What do we do?
Louise (as GREED Machine Inventor): Well maybe these two countries will come back
together.
Denmark: Put a rope on to pull the countries together.
Louise (as GREED Machine Inventor): Well this young man talked about having a bri dge,
but I‘m meaning that the countries can start to thrive again having more
trees and more animals.
And that‘s what happened in the story, they talked and talked and worked out what to do.
Worked out ways that they could live peacefully with the plants and animals. They only ate
what they needed and there weren‘t children having to work. There were still forests. That is
the end of the story about Greenland and Black -n-white and the GREED Machine.
Source: Written by author at the time of the study drawing inspiration from:
Dr. Seuss. (1972). The Lorax . London: Collins.
Jacobs Sife, D. (2007). To fill a bowl . Retrieved June 6, 2007, from
http://www.donnajacobsife.com

275 Appendix M: Workshop 12 Story – Two Rocks
After the meeting, the GREED machine in ventor acted on some of the ideas suggested.
Firstly, he invented a new machine —a machine that planted seeds for more trees to grow, in
an effort to replace the ones that the GREED machine had chopped to make all those
desirable things. And then he had a b ridge built between the two countries.
The people from Black‘n‘white found it so hard to live in their country with so few
trees and animals to provide food. Everyone, and I mean everyone (yes – parents and
children) had to work so hard just to be able to feed him or herself. The money they earned
was so little and food was so scarce that Black‘n‘whiters began to steal from each other and
fight with each other, just for food to stay alive. Black‘n‘whiters knew that people in
Greenland had a better life so many Black‘n‘whiters left with hope for a great life in
Greenland by crossing the bridge.
Unfortunately, as soon as they arrived in Greenland the Greenlanders saw that they
were not Greenlanders, so they were not welcomed. For the Greenlanders feared that the
Black‘n‘whiters would take their precious things (of which they had so many). Greenlanders
were very concerned about their things, they knew that they were precious and that others
wanted them too so they locked all their things up and they became sus picious of anyone
who came near them for fear that they may take their things.
Each morning Greenlanders would get dressed in their fine clothes, then lock them
on (click -click), then they would pack their lunches, then lock their lunch boxes (click -click ),
then they would walk out of their house locking all the doors and windows (click -click click –
click click -click click -click) then they would drive to work in their car, then lock it (click –
click). Then they would spend the day working for the GREED machi ne making more and
more things, reasonably content that all the things that they did already have were safe. Some
Greenlanders had the special job of watching over all the things in Greenland by standing
guard with arms folded looking to the side, then ahe ad, then to the side, and then behind and
then to the side, then ahead, to the other side, and then behind, and so on. No one was going
to take their precious things.
The Black‘n‘whiters who had made it to Greenland sat on the edge of Greenland,
unsure of what to do. They couldn‘t go back to Black‘n‘white, there was nothing there for
them, yet Greenlanders would not let them work or be a part of Greenland activities. They
sat feeling miserable, feeling despair, feeling like giving up. How were they going to have a
better life? Then one Black‘n‘whiter started to sing ― Obwi -sa-na-sa-na-na Obwi -sa-na-sa-na-
sa Obwi -sa-na-sa-na-na Obwi -sa-na-sa-na-sa‖ as they sat in a circle and passed around two
rocks that they had brought with them from Black‘n‘white for memori es.

276 The Greenlanders started to hear a strange noise, a noise they had never heard
before, but they thought it was a terrible noise, an annoying noise. They heard, ―nah nah na‖.
This made the Greenlanders angry and they tried everything to stop it. They bu ilt sound
barriers, they made earplugs, earmuffs and all kinds of things to block the noise. They knew
it was the Black‘n‘whiters but they did not like the sound, they did not understand the sound
so they blocked it out.
More and more Black‘n‘whiters came to Greenland and each one of them was forced
to stay with their own people on the edge of Greenland. They went on singing their song.
―Obwi -sa-na-sa-na-na Obwi -sa-na-sa-na-sa Obwi -sa-na-sa-na-na Obwi -sa-na-sa-na-sa‖
The Greenlanders called a meeting in de speration as ―nah nah na‖ echoed loudly
across their land. The Boss of Greenland, the GREED machine inventor of course had ideas
for yet another machine that would silence the ―nah nah na‖. Some other Greenlanders
asked, ―Can‘t we just ask them to leave, t o go back to Black‘n‘white?‖
Then a wise old woman shuffled forward from the crowd. She had travelled to
Black‘n‘white many moons ago so she knew the language of Black‘n‘white. ―This song you
hear is the Black‘n‘whiters plea for freedom, they want to be he ard. Please listen to them.‖
There was a hush among the crowd. Greenlanders were stunned, puzzled as they
questioned if this was really true. Had they really been so rude as to not listen to fellow
humans? The Greenlanders then did as the wise old woman ha d suggested and invited four
Black‘n‘whiters to a meeting: a man, a woman, a boy and a girl. The Greenlanders made
sure that the wise old woman was present so she could help them to understand what they
were saying. And so the Greenlanders sat and listened and they heard of the Black‘n‘whiters‘
need for food, warmth, and a place to belong in peace: a home.
So slowly over time things began to change. The people in Black‘n‘white were paid
the same amount of money as Greenlanders for their work. Schools were b uilt in
Black‘n‘white for children to attend, as they no longer needed to work to feed their family.
Forests were replanted and in time more animals started appearing in the forests. Some
Black‘n‘whiters even sighted the Coxen‘s fig -parrot, their beautiful parrot that they thought
they had lost for no one had seen one for such a long time from when Greenlanders first
started chopping down their trees for the GREED machine. The Black‘n‘whiters rejoiced for
this truly was a sign of hope. They gathered in a ci rcle and invited the Greenlanders as well
to sing ― Obwi -sa-na-sa-na-na Obwi -sa-na-sa-na-sa Obwi -sa-na-sa-na-na Obwi -sa-na-sa-na-
sa‖ as they passed around two rocks: one form Black‘n‘white and one from Greenland.
Source: Written by author at the time of the study to bring previously shared stories together
with some inspiration from Oliver, N. (2005). Dancing the boom cha cha boogie . Malvern,
SA: Omnibus Books .