CHILDREN & SOCIETY VOLUME 18 (2004) pp.
231242
Published online 9 November 2003 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/CHI.795
Being Responsible and Responsible
Beings: Childrens Understanding
of Responsibility
Elizabeth Such and
Robert Walker
University of
Nottingham
Correspondence to: Dr. Elizabeth
Such, 2nd Floor, Kings Court,
80 Hanover Way, Sheffield S3 7UF,
UK.
E-mail: liz.such1@btopenworld.com
Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Responsibility is a key concept in policy and public debate about the
lives of children and families. On the one hand, parents are assumed
to take responsibility for childrens well-being; on the other, children
and young people are blamed and frequently punished for
irresponsible or anti-social behaviour. The article deconstructs the
concept of responsibility from childrens perspectives. Data are taken
from a pilot study of 29 children aged nine and 10 in the East
Midlands, England. In-depth interviews revealed that children
assume a series of responsibilities in the home and that these are
understood as an inevitable and normal part of daily life. Children
also described the basis of being responsible as underscored by two
core values (honesty and fairness) and indicated that responsibility
was a crucial part of their moral worlds. These moral understandings
were, however, malleable. They were particularly mediated by the
childparent relationship and were constantly being negotiated and
renegotiated in the home. Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
T
he concept of responsibility is a salient and controver-
sial theme of public debate, particularly in relation to
children and families. Tearaway teenagers and
unruly, irresponsible youth frequently make tabloid head-
lines and feckless parents have been openly targeted by
ministers (former Education Secretary Estelle Morris, March
2002). New Labour has adopted the rhetoric of rights and
responsibilities on issues relating to children: parents are
responsible for the financial maintenance and moral and social
education of children and the national curriculum openly links
childrens rights to that of young citizens responsibilities.
Central to public debate about childrens and parents
responsibilities is the question: what is childhood? (James
and Prout, 1997) Different public discourses compete to define
childhood and its relationship to adulthood and parenthood.
Responsibility emerges as a key variable in the definition of
modern childhood and generational difference. On the one
hand, childrens status as non-adults (Mayall, 2001; Gittins,
1998; Franklin and Petley, 1996) constructs the child as free
from the responsibilities of the adult world; on another,
232 Elizabeth Such and Robert Walker

modern trends towards individualisation emphasise participation (Prout, 2000) and hold
the child to account for actions (Goldson, 1947a, 2001; Jones and Bell, 2000).

The paper attempts to move beyond discourses on children, the family and responsibilities
by exploring childrens discourses of responsibility in the context of family life. Data from
a pilot study of 29 children aged nine and 10 are used to explore childrens understandings
of responsibility. Three themes of discourse are discussed: the types of responsibility
children engage in, the moral basis of assuming responsibility for oneself and others and
the negotiation of responsibility. Analysis of childrens accounts indicates that
responsibility is a meaningful component of childrens lives that is multi-dimensional,
dynamic and relational in nature and deeply embedded in childadult relations.

Understanding responsibility

Responsibility can be understood from a range of perspectives. Developmental

psychology highlights the age-based stages or phases of childrens development and
points to the importance of the acquisition of responsibility for the transition from
childhood to adulthood (Schaffer, 1996). The ability of children to assume responsibility
for themselves or self-regulate their behaviour has been extensively theorised (Kopp,
1982; Kuczynski and Kochanska, 1990). Normal development is regarded as constituting
the gradual increase in childrens capacity to assume responsibility for themselves.
Demonstrating empathy or altruism (a sense of responsibility to others) also indicates
positive development and has similarly been shown to progress in steps or sequences for
the normally developing child (Hoffman, 1987).

Developmental psychology also highlights the importance of the family in nurturing

childrens sense of responsibility. Parents are viewed as the agents through which children
develop (Schaffer, 1996). This view is closely allied to traditional sociological theories of
socialisation (Parsons and Bales, 1956; Parsons, 1974). Socialisation theories point to the
importance of child-rearing practices of parents on outcomes for children. According to
such theories, responsibility is conceptualised as something that is learnt by example;
children are socialised into morally responsible attitudes and actions and are dependent
upon their parents for moral guidance.

These two approaches carry considerable currency in contemporary policy and

professional practice (Prout and James, 1997; Brannen, 1999). Educationalists, child-
rearing commentators and social care professionals utilise theories of child development
and socialisation and the evolution of responsibility in thinking and practice. Despite their
dominance, tensions exist both within and between the two theories. For example,
orthodox child development theory endorses a model of increasing responsibility with age
but says little about how much is ideal at what age. Furthermore, the two approaches are
counterpoised in discussions of the balance between childrens and parents responsi-
bilities. The chronologically based view of childrens partial responsibility for themselves
and others is opposed by the view that parents, not children, are absolutely responsible.

At the core of these tensions lie questions about the nature of childhood. Modern
constructions of childhood are ambivalent about the role of responsibility in childrens
lives. Children who perform adult-like caring responsibilities for dependent adults, for

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. CHILDREN & SOCIETY Vol. 18, 231242 (2004)
 Childrens Understanding of Responsibility 233

example, occupy the tenuous position of being lauded as children of courage (Aldridge
and Becker, 1995) whilst being a concern for child protection agencies.

Such ambivalence can be partly accounted for by the marginalization of children

themselves in discussions of the form, content and nature of childhood. Definitions of
responsibility have been constituted and contested almost exclusively from adult
perspectives. The new social studies of childhood (James and others, 1998), however,
offers an opportunity to better understand childrens experience of childhood and their
active engagement in its construction. Studies within this emergent paradigm have
challenged the notion of natural growth in child development and socialisation theories
and pointed to the social construction of childhood (Prout and James, 1997; Solberg, 1997).
Three important strands of work that partly deconstruct the relationship between
responsibility and childhood are: a) studies of childrens work, b) research on the
negotiation of daily life and c) explorations of childrens moral status and agency.

Studies of childrens work examine both paid and unpaid labour and span a range of
geographical, cultural and historical contexts. Historical analysis of child employment in
the UK reveals that it became socially unacceptable only in the relatively recent post-
industrial era (Goldson, 1997b; Hobbs and McKechnie, 1997). But it is mistaken to
conclude that childrens paid employment is consigned to UK history or that it is a concern
for only developing countries (Mizen and others, 1999, 2001). Research reveals that
employment is a majority experience for children in Britain with most children having at
least one job before they reach school-leaving age (Hobbs and McKechnie, 1997). The
employed child is far removed from the model of the dependent child, free from the
responsibilities of the adult world.

Children are also important contributors to work in the home (Morrow, 1996; Solberg,
1997; Dearden and Becker, 1998; Kelley and others, 1998; Mayall, 2001). Children have
been cited as fulfilling a range of domestic tasks and assuming responsibility for siblings
in a variety of family settings and national contexts (for example, Punch, 2001; Smart and
others, 2001; Calkins and others, 2002). Solberg (1997) and Morrow (1996) suggest that
mothers (especially employed mothers) share the burden of domestic work with their
children. Studies of young carers show that children often assume high levels of
responsibility for dependent adults (Aldridge and Becker, 1995; Dearden and Becker,
1998) and Mayall (2001) showed that children engage in moral work in the home by
constructing and maintaining positive and family relationships.

Although examinations of domestic practices point to childrens participation, Mayall

(2001, p. 120) indicates housework is often experienced as delegated tasks from parents
rather than as responsibilities. The concept of responsibility from Mayalls perspective
therefore implies some degree of autonomy. Solbergs (1997) study, however, indicates
that the fulfilment of delegating duties by children can result in an improvement in their
negotiating position in the home. Seeing children carrying out tasks placed upon them,
Solberg suggests, impacts on many parents conceptions of childrens age and of their
dependency (1997, p. 141). Delegating tasks may therefore foster increased confidence in
childrens competence and allow room for greater independence and autonomy. Solberg
indicates that responsibilities form part of a reciprocal working agreement between
children and parents. In this agreement, autonomy and obligation are negotiated,
redefining the parameters of childadult power relations.

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. CHILDREN & SOCIETY Vol. 18, 231242 (2004)
234 Elizabeth Such and Robert Walker

Relational processes between adults/parents and children also assign children certain
moral characteristics (Mayall, 2002). Adult definitions of children are strongly influenced
by developmental discourse that links emotional and cognitive maturity with chron-
ological age. From this perspective, children are considered too immature to comprehend
adult morality and are deemed morally incompetent (Morrow, 1996; Mayall, 2001). Yet
research with children points to their moral engagement with family, peer, community
and societal issues (Christensen, 2002; Moss and Petrie, 2002; Thomson and Holland, 2002;
OToole, 2003). Children display moral competence in their discussion of relationships;
issues of justice, equal distribution and sharing are confronted (Mayall, 2002, p. 88). The
fault line between childrens moral agency and their low moral status, however,
manifests itself in ambiguity in their discourses: children have been shown to both
downgrade and fiercely defend their moral competence (Mayall, 2002, p. 110).

These important strands of work present a series of challenges to the study of

responsibility from childrens perspectives: what is the nature of responsibility in
childrens lives? How do children make moral sense of responsibility? How does it relate
to childrens moral status and their moral agency? How are responsibilities negotiated in
the home and how are they shaped by negotiation? What is the role of childadult
relations in negotiations?

The study

The aim of the research is to explore and analyse the concept of responsibility from
childrens perspectives in the context of the family. The paper is structured by three main
themes of investigation. First, the types of responsibility children assume are explored.
Second, the basis of responsibility in terms of its moral content is examined. In this section
of the paper, responsibility is examined as a component of childrens moral under-
standings of their ideas about themselves (moral identity), how they express this moral
identity (moral agency) and how they make sense of moral issues (moral rationalities).
This is placed in the context of childrens moral status (morally inferior, incompetent) in
relation to adults (morally superior, competent). Finally, the paper looks at the way
responsibility is negotiated by children. The childparent relationship and the negotiation
of responsibilities within that relationship are of particular interest.

The data derive from conversations with children carried out over a four-week period in a
primary school in the East Midlands in the summer of 2002. Twenty-nine children (17 girls
and 12 boys) aged nine and 10 were interviewed on two occasions in groups of two or
three or individually. The socio-economic profile of the school was predominantly middle
class, although about one fifth of the children interviewed reported their parents
occupations as skilled or semi-skilled manual. The study group included two children
from a South Asian family background; the remainder of the study group were white
British. The children lived in a range of family structures including two-parent families
(biological and reconstituted), lone parent families and extended families. All of the
children lived with one or more siblings (foster, biological or half brothers or sisters). The
findings must of course be evaluated in the context of the rather narrow range of socio-
economic, ethnic and family backgrounds and ages represented in the study group.

The interviews were designed to be flexible and explorative so that the children could
direct conversations as they wished. Open-ended questions were piloted and focused on

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. CHILDREN & SOCIETY Vol. 18, 231242 (2004)
 Childrens Understanding of Responsibility 235

the topics helping and looking after and risk. Children were given the opportunity to
identify their own pseudonyms for the presentation of the research. This formed part of a
strategy to enable the interviewees more fully to participate in the research. Each interview
was carried out in a private setting away from the childrens usual classroom and they
lasted between 30 minutes and one hour.

Types of responsibility

Reflecting the findings of other research, children contributed to household management

by fulfilling a range of domestic chores, looking after siblings and engaging in self care (for
example washing, brushing teeth, getting ready for school). Children reported making
beds, tidying rooms, washing up, vacuuming, making breakfasts, cleaning cars, feeding
and looking after pets and tidying the home generally. Children also supported brothers
and sisters (playing, helping, comforting) and stuck up for them in instances of bullying
and adult chastisement.

Viewed in isolation, these findings are not remarkable. It is also arguable that such
activities were tasks delegated from adult to child, rather than responsibilities in which
children had a personal investment. But unpacking the meanings behind childrens
contributions revealed that domestic work was perceived as something that went beyond
a unidirectional delegation of tasks from adult to child. For example, housework was
largely viewed as something that was everyday, part of the routine of daily life and
relatively freely chosen: Sometimes Im asked to [make my bed] . . . but most times I just
get up and I make my own bed before going downstairs (Alexa, 9). The performance of
regular tasks was also frequently readily accepted as fair: Theyre normal things . . . my
Mum and Dad cant always do the work and weve got to in the end find out how to do it
for ourself (Neo, 10); If . . . its a normal day youll probably just have to do it because
theres nothing wrong with it (Ewan, 10).

The everydayness of tasks and their fairness reveals an understanding of domestic

work as an integrative part of daily life. Furthermore, Neos comments indicate that doing
normal things is a normal part of growing up or becoming a future adult. This link
between chronological age and increased responsibility was characteristic of many of the
childrens understandings of becoming (Jenks, 1982). John talked about the differences
between his own and his younger sisters household duties, for example: I dont think she
should get as many jobs around the house because shes a little bit younger and I dont
think she should have more responsibility than me . . . When you get older you get more
responsibility because you get trusted more (John, 10).

These comments are developmentalist in that they emphasise the perceived importance
of acquiring responsibility with age. All children in all circumstances did however, not
accept this normative account of child development. Experience often contradicted
expectation: children reported parents underestimation of the competence of younger
siblings who unjustly got away with not doing much in the home; older siblings were
irresponsible in their bullying and coercion of younger siblings; and adult example did
not always match the fully developed model (cf. Kelley and others, 1997).

A key factor in childrens acceptance of a developmentalist argument appeared to be the

extent to which obligation and parental control shaped their activities in the home.

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. CHILDREN & SOCIETY Vol. 18, 231242 (2004)
236 Elizabeth Such and Robert Walker

Getting trusted more, gaining the independence to decide when and how to do a task and
not being threatened with harsh sanctions by parents was integral to the development of a
sense of autonomous responsibility. Yet autonomy was not the sole factor in childrens
understanding of responsibility; children often spoke of feeling responsible for parents
happiness and doing adult-defined tasks was one way of fulfilling that responsibility or
moral work (Mayall, 2001). Liz reflected on the dilemma of duty and autonomy in her
following comments:

My Mum said Im going out and when I come back I hope that youre going to have at least
started on the rabbits and I was like oo, Ive got to go, but this is a good programme and
youre kind of 50/50you dont know what to do. Sometimes you feel tempted just to stay
and watch TV . . . They ask you to do something, they dont tell you to do something, they say
oh, can you do this? and if you dont it just feels like youre sort of letting them down a bit.
(Liz, 10)

Analysis of childrens discussion revealed that the nature of responsibility in the home did
not only constitute doing tasks such as cleaning, making lunches and looking after siblings
but included notions of choice, autonomy, becoming and developing. Responsibility
was also understood as relational. Other peoples actions and attitudes could be
contrasted with ones own and could, in some cases, undermine the dominant
developmental discourse used by parents and children to justify increased responsibility
with age. Relational aspects of responsibility were also evident in childrens willingness to
relinquish their autonomy for others satisfaction. Children showed that they took account
of other peoples expectations and feelings when reflecting on their actions and took
responsibility for the happiness of others.

The basis of responsibility

Childrens discussions of the relational nature of responsibility uncovered reflections on

moral identity. Discourses of moral identity were often quite complex and were
constructed around notions of what was right, wrong, just and fair. Being responsible
for oneself and others was intricately interwoven with understandings of the moral status
of childhood and parenthood. It meant being able to do things properly (Spiderlady, 10);
was about growing up and being more mature and meant youre not as silly . . . you act
your age (James, 10). It was about being trustworthy (Milly, 10 and Penny, 10), sensible
and not being like a baby (Rowanne, 10). It also meant behaving better and setting a
good example to younger people (Andrew, 10) and being able to exercise personal
judgement (Julia, 10).

These discourses primarily focused on modifications of behaviour and attitude that were
an outcome of intellectual and emotional development. Childrens definitions of what
being responsible meant seemed to integrate dominant understandings of childhood
(untrustworthy, naughty, developing). The language used by children in these examples
was also mirrored in the language reputedly used by parents when referring to children.
Alethea, for example, reported that she was more likely than her younger sister to get told
off because her Mum considered her old enough to understand that certain behaviours
were unacceptable (Alethea, 10).

Children indicated that being responsible, doing responsible things and doing things
responsibly were part of their own and their parents criteria of development. But

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. CHILDREN & SOCIETY Vol. 18, 231242 (2004)
 Childrens Understanding of Responsibility 237

perceptions of what being responsible constituted and, more importantly, how behaviour
was interpreted, did not always concur. Several children believed that parents
inaccurately deemed their behaviour irresponsible because they misinterpreted their
actions. Boys discussions of risk, for example, pointed to its importance as a fun part of
their daily lives, not as indicative of irresponsibility or as morally deviant.

Children often spoke of being responsible with reference to two seemingly core values:
honesty and fairness. The issue of honesty frequently emerged in discussions about risk-
taking, accidents and instances when children had understood something to be wrong.
Being honest or not lying was presented as evidence of responsible action and attitudes in
such situations. For example, Milly explained why it was important that she apologised to
her brother after kicking him in a fight: If I lied then that wouldnt be fair on my brother
. . . because he didnt do anything (Milly, 10). Here, Milly combines both the discourse of
honesty with that of fairness in the moral reasoning of her apology to her brother. In fact
children frequently combined the two arguments. Stealing, for example, was cited as both
dishonest and unfair: Youre taking somebody elses property and its not even yours
(Penny, 10); Everybody else is paying for stuff that they want (Rowanne, 10). Exercising
the values of honesty and fairness were not, however, unproblematic but reflected upon in
context. As such, being responsible was part of a reflexive process that was embedded in
a complex of relationships.

Children further demonstrated responsibility and moral agency in their discussions of

taking the blame for wrong acts, accidents or when talking about the consequences of
risky behaviours. Taking and accepting the blame was a common feature of childrens
lives. Parents, siblings, peers and teachers could allocate blame but it could also be actively
accepted by owning up. It was owning up to things that children seemed to understand
as constituting responsible behaviour: If you do something naughty youve got to admit it
was you (Alexa, 9). Annie said that it was worth admitting things because: Otherwise
you can get other people into trouble (Annie, 10).

Owning up to things was consistent with the notion that being responsible meant being
honest and fair to others. Conversely, not owning up challenged childrens sense of
fairness and justice and led to feelings of guilt: I went to this ladys house and . . . I broke a
piece of her china and I didnt tell anyone . . . I felt really guilty after that and I still feel
guilty if I think about it (Alethea, 10). Often this sense of guilt informed future
(responsible) action: I hide lots of things in my room but usually I give them all back when
like Ive upset somebody and I really feel sorry for it (Liz, 10).

Children indicated that there were several ways of being responsible and showed that
they engaged in the construction of different identities in different contexts. These
different ways of being were described and justified using a range of moral rationalities. It
emerged that the two primary values underpinning responsibility, honesty and fairness,
were malleable concepts that were dependent on context. Lying, for example, could be
acceptable in certain circumstances or in the context of certain settings or relationships. For
example, dishonesty was frequently exercised as a means of avoiding chastisement;
highlighting the keenly felt power imbalance between child and adult.

Childrens constructions of responsibility therefore operated in the context of childadult

relations. Childrens ability to shape the environment in which they could negotiate

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. CHILDREN & SOCIETY Vol. 18, 231242 (2004)
238 Elizabeth Such and Robert Walker

matters of right/wrong and responsibility/irresponsibility proved to be difficult and

sometimes strategies that appeared to counter childrens own moral code were used as a
means of accessing control. The danger of being caught engaging in morally deviant
acts was, however, ever-present and could impede further childrens ability to exercise
responsibility.

Negotiating responsibility

The responsibilities of parents and children were constantly being negotiated and
renegotiated in the home. These negotiations were fundamentally attempts to define and
redefine the childparent boundary. Two competing and unresolved discourses informed
negotiations of responsibility: the normative discourse of parents absolute responsibility
to look after children and childrens understanding of the need for themselves as
individuals to accept responsibility for their own actions. The former discourse was
apparent in a conversation with Andrew and Ewan:

ES: So why do you think these adultsso your Mum and your Daddo things for you and
your brothers and sisters? Why do they do those things?
Ewan: Cos were their sons. Cos were their children so they brought us into this world so its
their responsibility.
ES: Right. OK. Its their responsibility to look after you?
Ewan: Yeah.
ES: OK. What do you think Andrew?
Andrew: Theyve got to look after us, make us have a healthy life and that kind of stuff.
(Andrew, 10 and Ewan, 10)

This absolute responsibility ascribed to parents by children contrasted with discourses of

individual responsibility. Children presented the idea that everyone had responsibilities
but that role and status differentiated the responsibilities of parents and children.

ES: Are their [your parents] responsibilities different to yours then, in a way?

Jenny: Yes in some ways no in others, because, I dont have to like, as such, like, keep an eye on
her at every last minute, my sister, and my Mum does. She has to make sure she doesnt get
into trouble, and she also has to keep in touch with her school, go to meetings, we dont have to
do that, but we still have a big responsibility. Im the oldest in the family you see and my Mum
relies [on me] to behave. (Jenny, 10)

This quotation indicates that parental responsibility interweaves with individual

responsibility and that the different responsibilities of parents and children complement
one another.

The tension between absolute parental responsibility and individual responsibility was
evident in childrens accounts of the negotiations of responsibility that took place in the
home. The absolute responsibility of parents for the physical safety of children led to
containment of childrens physical freedom by parents (for example, going places alone)
and the surveillance of children in the home. This had implications for childrens sense of

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. CHILDREN & SOCIETY Vol. 18, 231242 (2004)
 Childrens Understanding of Responsibility 239

control over their environment and limited opportunities for individual responsibility to
be exercised. As a consequence, children adopted strategies aimed at gaining some control
over their environment so that they could access individual freedom, autonomy and
responsibility.

One strategy that fundamentally attempted to strengthen the voice of the child was
shoring up behavioural reputation or record by fulfilling parental expectations about
behaviour. A good record could improve the degree of responsibility and freedom granted
to children and offset the negative consequences of parental control. A good record meant
telling the truth, not being naughty and demonstrating that one was mature, sensible and
trustworthy. Demonstrating these qualities (doing things responsibly) opened up
opportunities to exercise autonomy (doing responsible things) and strengthened the
voice of the child: If youre usually good or something then they [parents] go and stick up
for you but if youre bad like if youre lying all the time then theyre not gonna believe you
(Andy, 10).

Meeting parental expectations was, therefore, a vital component of accessing responsi-

bility, freedom and a degree of power in the home. Hence, many children attempted to
protect their behavioural records and even used the bad records of others as a means of
protecting their own:

Sometimes erm when my brother annoys me I tell him to shut up and then my Mum and Dad
tell me off but I deny it and they always believe me cos hes usually the one that lies and Im
usually the one that tells the truth so I always get away with that and he gets told off for lying
(Sooty, 10).

Age was also an important factor when attempting to protect ones behavioural reputation
because of the assumption that older children were more trustworthy and responsible.
The assumption that age was linked to trustworthiness placed younger siblings at an
automatic disadvantage when attempting to construct a favourable record and when
negotiating freedoms and responsibilities in the home. Attempts to strengthen voice
were therefore influenced by behavioural record, which was partly dependent on the
extent to which parents linked chronological age to notions of trustworthiness.

Conclusion

The exploration of the concept of responsibility with children has been instructive at
several levels. The study has revealed that:

 Responsibilities are manifest in childrens daily lives

Childhood is not free from responsibilities and childrens experience of responsibility is
not generally negative. The notion that childhood is or should be free from
responsibilities is therefore out of touch with childrens daily lives.

 Childrens and parents responsibilities contribute to the functioning of the household

Childrens contribution to domestic work is often overlooked. The study indicated that
children and parents had different but complementary responsibilities in the home.

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. CHILDREN & SOCIETY Vol. 18, 231242 (2004)
240 Elizabeth Such and Robert Walker

 Responsibility is relational
Responsibility is embedded in childrens relationships with others. Responsibility for
oneself is reflexively judged in relation to the actions and attitudes of other children and
adults. Responsibility is also understood as a need to consider the feelings of others,
including siblings and parents. There is, therefore, no one-way responsibility
relationship between children and parents.

 The moral components of responsibility are critically evaluated

Reflecting the findings of other research, children demonstrated moral competence in
their reflexive judgement of the moral components of responsibility. Their critical
appraisal of moral responsibility is far removed from the model of childrens assumed
inability to make sense of moral issues.

 Children engage in the construction of the moral, responsible self

Being responsible was a constituent of identity that was socially and internally
negotiated. The idea that children draw morality from adult example alone is therefore
inaccurate.

 The negotiation of responsibility plays out tensions in the childparent relationship

Parental and individual responsibility is constantly negotiated between parents and
children. These negotiations attempt to define and refine the boundary between the role
of parents and children in the home. Responsibility is therefore a key variable in the
renegotiation of generational relations in the home. Children attempt to redefine
themselves as older than their biological age, in other words, narrow the gap of
assumed generational difference between adults and children (Solberg, 1997).

 Doing things responsibly and doing responsible things are avenues to power and
autonomy
Key to an understanding of the process of the formulation and negotiation of
responsibilities is the reciprocal relationship children saw between doing things
responsibly and doing responsible things. Children understood that the way they did
things opened or closed opportunities to do other things. Doing things responsibly
(sensibly, maturely, with trust) was, therefore, a means of accessing more responsible
things (going places unaccompanied, choosing when and how to do chores, being left
home alone). For many this implied improved status, power and autonomy.

These findings challenge the policy and professional discourses outlined in the early part
of the paper. They point to the importance of conceptual rigour in discussions of
responsibility. For example, New Labour has frequently used the concepts of rights and
responsibilities in its discussion of the duties of parents and the anti-social behaviour of
children and young people, but has not yet adequately and unambiguously defined what
these rights and responsibilities constitute (cf. Jones and Bell, 2000; Deacon, 2002). The
balance between the responsibilities of parents is unresolved in policy and is dominated
by the assumed natural irresponsibility of children.

In the absence of conceptual clarity, the coupling of rights and responsibilities in policy is
problematic. The pilot study, however, guides us to an improved understanding of the

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. CHILDREN & SOCIETY Vol. 18, 231242 (2004)
 Childrens Understanding of Responsibility 241

concept of responsibility from childrens perspectives (albeit a narrow range) and could
act as a starting point for further discussion about the link, if any, between the two. A more
immediately apparent benefit of better understanding childrens views on responsibility is
recognising that children and adults alike engage in morally and socially responsible acts.
Recognition may improve the status of children in society, which, in turn, may enhance
the possibility of children being listened to and their rights being respected (Mayall, 2002).

Acknowledgements

We are indebted to all of the children who participated in the project, the parents and
teachers who cooperated with the research and to Julia Griggs for her invaluable
assistance.

References

Aldridge J, Becker S. 1995. The rights and wrongs of children who care. In The Handbook of Childrens
Rights: Comparative Policy and Practice, Franklin B (ed.). Routledge: London/New York; 119130.
Brannen J. 1999. Reconsidering children and childhood: sociological and policy perspectives. In The
New Family? Silva EB, Smart C (eds). Sage: London; 143158.
Calkins J, Tout K, Vandivere S. 2002. Unsupervised time: child and family characteristics associated
with self care among school-aged children. Paper presented to Association for Public Policy
Analysis and Management Fall Research conference. Dallas, 79 November.
Christensen PH. 2002. Why more quality time is not on the top of childrens lists: the qualities of
time for children. Children & Society 16: 7788.
Dearden C, Becker S. 1998. Young Carers in the United Kingdom: A Profile. Carers National Association:
London.
Deacon A. 2002. Equality, community and . . . coercion. What values shape New Labours approach
to welfare? Paper presented to conference on Social Values, Social Policies. Tilburg University,
1931 August.
Franklin B, Petley J. 1996. Killing in the age of innocence: newspaper reporting of the death of James
Bulger. In Thatchers Children: Politics, Childhood and Society in the 1980s and 1990s, Pilcher J, Wagg S
(eds). Falmer Press: London/Washington; 134154.
Gittins D. 1998. The Child in Question. MacMillan: Basingstoke.
Goldson B. 1997a. Children in trouble: state responses to juvenile crime. In Childhood in Crisis?
Scraton P (ed.). UCL Press: London; 124145.
Goldson B. 1997b. Childhood: an introduction to historical and theoretical analyses. In Childhood in
Crisis? Scraton P (ed.). UCL Press: London; 127.
Goldson B. 2001. The demonization of children: from the symbolic to the institutional. In Children in
Society: Contemporary Theory, Policy and Practice, Foley P, Roche J, Tucker S (eds). Palgrave:
Hampshire; 3448.
Hobbs S, McKechnie J. 1997. Child Employment in Britain: A Social and Psychological Analysis. The
Stationery Office: Scotland.
Hoffman ML. 1987. The contribution of empathy to justice and moral judgement. In Empathy and its
Development, Eisenberg N, Strayer J (eds). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.
James A, Prout A (eds). 1997. Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood: Contemporary Issues in the
Sociological Study of Childhood. Falmer Press: London/Washington.
James A, Jenks C, Prout A. 1998. Theorizing Childhood. Polity Press: Cambridge.
Jenks C (ed.). 1982. The Sociology of Childhood: Essential Readings. Batsford Academic and Educational:
London.

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. CHILDREN & SOCIETY Vol. 18, 231242 (2004)
242 Elizabeth Such and Robert Walker

Jones G, Bell R. 2000. Youth, parenting and public policy. Findings. Joseph Rowntree Foundation:
York.
Kelley P, Mayall B, Hood S. 1997. Childrens accounts of risk. Childhood 4: 305324.
Kelley P, Hood S, Mayall B. 1998 Children, parents and risk. Health and Social Care in the Community
6(1): 1624.
Kopp CB. 1982. Antecedents of self-regulation: a developmental perspective. Developmental
Psychology 18: 199214.
Kuczynski L, Kochanska G. 1990. Development of childrens noncompliance strategies from toddler
to age 5. Development Psychology 26: 398408.
Mayall B. 2001. Understanding childhoods: a London study. In Conceptualizing ChildAdult Relations,
Alanen L, Mayall B (eds). Routledge/Falmer: London/New York; 114128.
Mayall B. 2002. Towards a Sociology for Childhood: Thinking from Childrens Lives. Open University
Press: Buckingham.
Mizen P, Bolton A, Pole C. 1999. School age workers: the paid employment of children in Britain,
Work, Employment and Society 13(3): 423438.
Mizen P, Pole C, Bolton A (eds). 2001. Hidden Hands: International Perspectives on Childrens Work and
Labour. Routledge/Falmer: London.
Morrow V. 1996. Rethinking childhood dependency: childrens contribution to the domestic
economy. Sociological Review 44(1): 5877.
Moss P, Petrie P. 2002. From Childrens Services to Childrens Spaces: Public Policy, Children and
Childhood. Routledge/Falmer: London/New York.
OToole T. 2003. Engaging with young peoples conceptions of the political. Childrens Geographies,
1(1): 7190.
Parsons T. 1974. Family structure in the modern United States. In The Family: Its Structures and
Functions, Coser RC (ed.). MacMillan: London; 243253.
Parsons T, Bales RF. 1956. Family: Socialisation and Interaction Process. Routledge and Keegan Paul:
London.
Prout A. 2000. Childrens participation: control and self-realisation in British late modernity. Children
& Society 14: 304315.
Prout A, James A. 1997. A new paradigm for the sociology of childhood? Provenance, promise and
problems. In Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood: Contemporary Issues in the Sociological Study
of Childhood, James A, Prout A (eds). Falmer Press: London/Washington; 733.
Punch S. 2001. Negotiating autonomy: childhoods in rural Bolivia. In Conceptualizing ChildAdult
Relations, Alanen L, Mayall B (eds). Routledge/Falmer: London/New York; 2336.
Schaffer HR. 1996. Social Development. Blackwell: Oxford.
Smart C, Neale B, Wade A. 2001. The Changing Experience of Childhood: Families and Divorce. Polity
Press: Cambridge.
Solberg A. 1997. Negotiating childhood: changing constructions of age for Norwegian children. In
Constructing and Reconstructing Childhood: Contemporary Issues in the Sociological Study of Childhood,
James A, Prout A (eds). Falmer Press: London/Washington; 126144.
Thomson R, Holland J. 2002. Young people, social change and the negotiation of moral authority.
Children & Society 16: 103115.

Contributors details

Elizabeth Such was a Research Fellow at the School of Sociology and Social Policy, University of
Nottingham at the time of writing.

Robert Walker is Professor of Social Policy, University of Nottingham and Research Fellow at the
Institute for Fiscal Studies. He was formerly Director of Research at Loughborough University and is
a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts.

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. CHILDREN & SOCIETY Vol. 18, 231242 (2004)