This article was downloaded by: [University of Kent]On: 09 November 2014, At: 09:45Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Early YearsEducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ciey20

With children in their lived place:children's action as research dataRaija Raittila aa Department of Education, Early Childhood Education , Universityof Jyväskylä , Jyväskylä , FinlandPublished online: 03 Sep 2012.

To cite this article: Raija Raittila (2012) With children in their lived place: children'saction as research data, International Journal of Early Years Education, 20:3, 270-279, DOI:10.1080/09669760.2012.718124

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2012.718124

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

With children in their lived place: children’s action as researchdata

Raija Raittila*

Department of Education, Early Childhood Education, University of Jyvaskyla, Jyvaskyla,Finland

(Received 1 May 2012; accepted 25 June 2012)

This article discusses theory and methods of researching the everydayexperiences of children in the city environment combined with the question ofgiving a voice to children. The article is organised into three parts. Part oneprovides a conceptual background, theorising the relational as well asintergenerational character of the concept of environment. The cultural-geographical theory and the concept of Thirdspace are used. Part two illustratesthe theoretical and methodological themes with reference to my study withchildren. I explored the encounter between children and the urban environment. Iapplied ethnographic tours around a city block with children and the children’sspontaneous chat and actions are the data which provide the basis for reflectingon how children’s lived places arise in everyday action. The third part of thisarticle discusses the construction of children’s lived places and urban childhood.

Keywords: children; relational environment; everyday action; urban; ethnography

Introduction

In this article, I discuss theory and methods of researching the everyday experiencesof children in the city environment. This question about children’s urban spatiality iscombined with that of giving a voice to children in order to reveal how theyexperience their nearest urban environment, what is important for them in theenvironment, and how children annex the urban environment. Furthermore, bothissues have close access to theoretical foundations, which are reflected upon at thebeginning of this article.

Kernan (2010, 201) outlines how childhood studies were influenced bygeographers and how, as a result, geographical research relating to children hasflourished since the 1990s. In addition, children’s own childhood spaces asconstructed by active, competent children received more attention. The concept ofchildren’s geographies combines multidisciplinary work with interests in thetheoretical and practical notions of children, place and space. Fields such asanthropology, environmental psychology, urban studies and architecture have alreadyyielded much knowledge about children’s environments (see also Holloway andValentine 2000; Matthew 2003).

I agree with Mannion (2007) that if we want to ‘go spatial’ we must ‘gorelational’. Mannion notes that we need to focus on the child�adult spaces

*Email: raija.raittila@jyu.fi

International Journal of Early Years Education

Vol. 20, No. 3, September 2012, 270�279

ISSN 0966-9760 print/ISSN 1469-8463 online

# 2012 Taylor & Francis

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2012.718124

http://www.tandfonline.com

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

9:45

09

Nov

embe

r 20

14

constructed in relational intergenerational dialogues. Other researchers have alsoemphasised this need, otherwise children’s spaces remain more like their ownseparate ‘Youthland’. Ansell (2009, 191�2, 194) questions the micro-scaleparticipatory projects with children in their everyday environments for two reasons.First, this kind of projects leaves unchallenged the processes broader than those witha child-focused perspective. She emphasises how important it is to ‘recognize that itis not only locally occurring processes, practices and events that impinge onchildren’s lives.’ Second, children’s geographies are not valued highly because theyconcentrate only on the small-scale nature of the research area. Furthermore, Ansellcriticises the childhood studies paradigm for too often taking local, concrete andagency perspectives instead of taking global, abstract or structuralist perspectives. Iargue, however, that small-scale research can also involve structuralist ideas and anabstract focus. As an explanation for this, the theoretical foundations and the deepanalysis of the concept of environment will be presented first.

Relational concepts of environment

The environment, place and space are interesting yet complicated concepts that arecurrently being discussed more frequently in childhood studies (Cele 2006; FogOlwig and Gulløv 2003; Harju 2011). The multidimensional character of the conceptof environment is analysed in my study with relational theories of the human�environment connection. I utilised the concept of behavioural settings from theecological psychologist Roger G. Barker (1968), the concept of affordance from theecological and perceptual psychologist James J. Gibson (1979/1986), the idea of howthe environment becomes visible through everyday activities by the social scientistMichel de Certeau (1984), combined with political geographer Edward Soja’s (1996)writings and theoretical thinking of Thirdspace. The latter theory is introduced ingreater detail in the following section.

Edward Soja’s theory of Thirdspace (1996) is based on Henri Lefebvre’s (1974/1991) writings on the spatial triad. Soja combines the analysis of space and society,and geographical and political sides of spatiality. His writings can be called criticalcultural studies of the spatiality of social life. In my study, this kind of theoreticalthinking involves the issue of the spatiality of urban childhood: how children’schildhoods are defined in (by adults) ready-made urban spaces and how childrenthemselves construct their own (lived) places therein.

Relational character of the concept of environment

The concepts of Firstspace, Secondspace and Thirdspace by Edward Soja can expandupon the multidimensional, relational and intergenerational character of the conceptof environment. The Firstspace can be seen at first glance when you look at the photo(Figure 1) of children in an urban environment. You see things like an iron railing, astone podium next to it and below these the water basin. Further, there are manybikes and an asphalt-paved museum yard. In this environment, there are many morephysical elements, such as shrubs or stones, which are not shown in the picture. Thisphysical environment is the most ‘familiar’ to us. The environment is understood assomething that surrounds us physically, and is independent of the human. Thisenvironment is perceptible, sensory and material, and can be empirically determinedand accurately measured. Soja calls this the Firstspace.

International Journal of Early Years Education 271

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

9:45

09

Nov

embe

r 20

14

The Secondspace takes shape when the material urban environment provides avariety of experiences or impressions. The iron railing seen in the picture can be adream come true for a child, because it may afford an exciting adventure, balancingand climbing on the water’s edge. For another child, it may be a place of fear, due toa similar experience. For adults the railing can be a source of concern because it cancause injuries. Rose bushes can be interpreted by children as a labyrinth or tunnel,through which you can crawl. The bushes themselves are the material option buthave its relational nature and can be called affordance (Gibson 1968, 69�70; Kytta2003, 47�8). The (potential) affordance exists without the presence of children in anurban environment, but only when the children enter the scene can the bushes be re-interpreted as a space for crawling (Rasmussen 2004). Children define the bushes ina new way, and take advantage of or actualise the affordance in the environment intheir own way.

In human geography, the term place refers to the environment in which somebodylives and acts and of which she or he makes her or his interpretations. The physical,material characteristics of the environment are organised and given meaning whensomebody perceives, interprets and names their environment. To the neutralenvironment are attached human, individual and subjective meanings, emotions,values, knowledge, memories, hopes and fears. In this way, the neutral spacetransforms into a personally meaningful place (see, e.g. Haarni et al. 1997; Tuan 1977).

The experience of the place cannot be separated from the person who lives in it.The place affects the way in which the experiencer perceives the world. Theperceived environment determines our interpretation of life and our opportunities

Figure 1. Children in the urban environment.

272 R. Raittila

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

9:45

09

Nov

embe

r 20

14

to act. People produce their environment, as do the children in the urbanenvironment. The perception of the material environment (the Firstspace), actionin and interpretation of the environment (the Secondspace) are inevitably intertwined(Soja 1996, 79). Thus, children generate their own urban environment through theirpersonal interpretations. However, the interpretations of space are not independentfrom the existing environment.

Added to Firstspace and Secondspace is Thirdspace. It includes the first twoconcepts, but is not simply a combination of them. This Thirdspace includescollective rules and values as well as the symbols of culture, politics and ideology.This environment can be a determining and inhibitory factor in people’s lives(Soja 1996, 67�8, 81�2).

The Thirdspace of the urban environment could simply be described by saying itconstitutes knowledge that it is urban public space. People (including children) whouse a physical urban environment have a lot of cultural and social information aboutthis environment and how to use it. This knowledge is generated when people livewithin culture. Children know � to some extent � what it means to live in an urbanenvironment and the public and hidden rules connected to it. They also have someknowledge as to how to use the urban environment, which might be different fromhow an adult uses it.

In sum, the relational character of the environment refers to the process thatintertwines the physical environment and concrete objects, the personal interpreta-tions of these objects as well as the cultural and collective views about the urbanenvironment. These categories of environment are understood as social constructionsthat are continuously reconstructed. When the environment is understood as havingbeen created by the interaction between humans and the environment, it is naturallycontinuously rebuilt and ever-changing. The two parties of interaction � the humanand the environment � are understood as well as the physical contribution in socialreality and to be socially constructed and changing over time (Lidskog 2001, 129).Geographer Doreen Massey (2005, 9, 2008, 40�1) states that the environment will beknown by the interrelation between the human and the environment.

My study

This study is the result of a long pilot period of one year and much theoreticalconsideration of relationship between children and the urban environment. Myresearch question was twofold: how children (4�6 years) construct the meaning ofthe urban environment and how the urban environment constructs childhood. Themutual determination of the different sides of the relationship takes place in everydaylife by encounter between children and the urban environment and forms an importantframe for urban childhood and children’s lives. Thus, within the study I reconsideredthe data gathering and dropped the interviews and moved to ethnographic city blocktours with children. The most important reason for this was the theoretical view thatthe environment emerges by the interaction between humans and the environment.The children then assume active roles as ‘environmental citizens’.

Ethnography aims at examining, describing and understanding the everyday livesof people. The origins of ethnography lie in anthropology, and it refers to anintegration of both empirical investigation and the theoretical interpretation of socialorganisation and culture. The most essential starting point of data collection is thatpeople’s actions and accounts of events are studied in everyday contexts

International Journal of Early Years Education 273

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

9:45

09

Nov

embe

r 20

14

(Hammersley and Atkinson 2007, 1�5). Thus, when the intention is to study theencounter between children and the urban environment, the researcher goes to wherechildren encounter the urban in their daily lives. As Heft and Kytta (2006, 212) put it,the relational character of human�environment reciprocity is anchored to what anindividual does or intends to do in a specific environment.

Data gathering: children’s action as research data

My study was conducted in a medium-sized town in Central Finland (70,000inhabitants). The research approach was constructed on the above-describedrelational theory of the human and the environment. Further, the principles ofchildhood studies (James and Prout 1997), research with children (Christensen andJames 2000; Clark and Moss 2001) and children’s geographies (Holloway andValentine 2000; Matthews and Limb 1999) were central when planning the research.

I tried to reflect carefully on all the ethical aspects of the study. The aim of thestudy was to get constitutive knowledge for child-centred environmental education inurban environment. This also seems to be a good goal for children although I did notdiscuss this with children. I also search a theoretical basis and methodologicalchoices whereby I could as well as possible understand children’s position andstandpoints. (Alderson and Morrow 2011, 11�4). Consent for recording and using thedata was negotiated with parents and children according to the ethical principles ofresearch with children (Conroy and Harcourt 2009; Grover 2004) to enable them tomake an informed decision on whether to participate or not. The children had theright to withdraw at any time, and I requested their permission each time I askedthem to accompany me on the research tours.

All the children were attending the same kindergarten. I went to the kindergartenone to three times a week and took part in the common morning activities. When itwas time to go outside to the playground, I asked if some children would like to takea tour with me around the neighbourhood. It was important that the children hadalready got to know me and were aware of the research. Each time there were moreeager children than could join the tour at a time.

The tours were carried out in small groups, formed by the children themselves.A single group was composed of 2 to 4 children, aged 4 to 6, and the researcher at thetime. A total of 36 children took part in the tours. In this study, the data from 20 tourswere analysed. When we left for a tour, I showed the tape recorder and told thechildren that it would be used to record the free chat during the tour. I then putthe recorder in my pocket and attached the microphone to my coat and followed thechildren (see also Walters and Mynard 2010, 477). I was in the position of just anothergroup member rather than a teacher. I had permission to be in on the children’s action,but I was not regarded as a (child) member of the tour group. The children led the toursand decided where to go, what to do and how long the tour would last � I tried to keepmyself in the background. I did not ask anything or interview them, but answeredwhen the children asked something. All this enabled me to enter into the children’sculture of communication (Haudrup Christensen 2004). I only reminded the childrenthat they were not allowed to go across the street (one city block available).

I intended to determine what aspects of the urban environment are important andinteresting to children and how they encounter them. I took into consideration thatmy data gathering could lead to the claimed/created spaces Thomson (2007, 210�1)spoke of when she raised concerns about participatory methods designed for

274 R. Raittila

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

9:45

09

Nov

embe

r 20

14

children. With this in mind, I invited children into the research arena and facilitatedtheir exploration and sharing of views on the urban environment. The participation isembedded within the social�spatial interaction between participants. The focus wason the children’s action, and the children’s own roles as data producers were central.Warming (2011) notes that data are often gathered with children orally, althoughmany kinds of activities are used as a frame within which to obtain children’s speech.This favours children who master verbal expression. In this study, action is asimportant � if not more so � a part of data as speech. I was only waiting andfollowing the children for what would be produced as data during the tours. Thismeets my aim of keeping the fieldwork as open as possible in order to avoid ready-made viewpoints and bias on the part of the researcher. My goal is comparable toHarcourt’s (2011, 340) intention to ask ‘What is it like to be a child?’ to which I add‘in the urban environment’.

My primary data consisted of children’s free chat and my participant observationsduring 20 walking tours on a city block. The children’s communication was recordedduring the tours and the observation notes were made directly afterward. Listening tothe tape-recorded free chat of children and other sounds and noises from the urbanenvironment assisted me in recalling the events when recording my observationnotes. I also learned to narrate some details now and then during the tours tohelp me remember the situations, e.g. ‘Now we have turned to go up the stairs of thetown hall . . .’

Analysis

In the analysis process, I look at the wholeness of the children’s actions and speech.The content analysis was conducted inductively. It followed loosely the principles ofgrounded theory. I separated the detailed specifications of children’s action andspeech into two main categories: moving and stopping. The contents of these maincategories were specified as I analysed the data and created descriptions of thesubcategories, which I accumulated from the details of all 20 tours. In addition to theroutes, their lengths and the different kinds of passages used by the children, Iconstructed subcategories of the number and motives for stops, the amount andcharacter of objects that were picked out not only concretely but also by namingthings or describing them to other tour group members.

I show here one example to demonstrate how to separate the details of thechildren’s action in analysis. Figure 2 shows two different kinds of routes used by thechildren.

These route maps enabled me to reflect on how different kinds of encountersbetween children and the urban environment happen when children have free choice.Some children’s groups used only the existing pavements while most groups decidedto take their own routes, shortcuts and to create adventures in the bushes. The lengthand diversity of the tour routes varied widely.

Another example of the variation in children’s action comes from picking outobjects in the urban environment. ‘Picking out’ is the term used here to describe howchildren talked about the objects they have noticed in the environment. On the 20tours, 545 objects were picked out by the children. There was wide variation in theamount of objects picked out between tours (from 7 to 68) regardless of the durationof the tours. Even in the middle of the town the children found more natural thancultural objects to pick out. Objects with personal memories and personal meanings

International Journal of Early Years Education 275

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

9:45

09

Nov

embe

r 20

14

were featured in small stories in 38 cases of natural objects but in only 7 cases ofcultural objects. The children paid little attention to buildings. In sum, the childrendirected their gazes at their own eye level or lower, and towards small details in theenvironment. There were no comments on entire landscapes.

According to my relational theory of environment, I elaborated on the description

of the lived places of children in an urban environment by ‘cross-stabling’ thesekinds of action details that occurred between children and the urban environment onthe tours. From the combined analysed details emerged four types of children’s livedplaces that describe the relational processes: explorative walking, focusing on

self-generated action, social walking and enjoying freedom (Raittila 2008).

Children’s lived places and urban childhood

In my study, the relational character of the children’s own environment is exploredby their actions in the urban environment. Although the data are gathered only fromchildren, the intergenerational angle is embedded in the theoretical foundation.Environment is determined by the different interpretations of the actors and will beconstantly changing. However, social action � which includes interpretation � cannotbe independent of the previously planned and created arrangements of theenvironment. These arrangements can be understood as reflecting society’s valuesand principles and generating its positions and way of actions. This urbanenvironment includes both its physical form and the social meanings and valuesconnected to the environment in society (Massey 2008, 35; Soja 1996, 1�3).

Such a view rejects the idea of environment as being precisely determined. Theenvironment arises in the process and is subject to constant re-constructions (Maenpaa,2005, 298�9; Massey 2005, 61; 2008, 57�8). The urban environment contains a certainrange of possibilities, limitations and affordances for a child. The environment willdefine what it means to be a child in urban surroundings. The environment planning,equipment, social habits and rules linked to the urban environment contain the idea ofthe ‘appropriate’ way to be a child in that environment. This reflects the perception ofchildren and childhood in the community. People in different positions in society havedifferent opportunities and rights to use the space, and at the same time their positions

Figure 2. Two different kinds of tour routes.

276 R. Raittila

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

9:45

09

Nov

embe

r 20

14

in society and in the environment are defined to a certain degree (Fog Olwig andGulløv 2003, 8). Moreover, in new cultural geography it has been emphasised that thesubjective experiences of the environment should be connected to the social andsocietal contexts. The purpose is to recognise how the environment can be perceiveddifferently on the basis of different positions in society, for example, age or genderpositions (Tani 2004, 137).

The aim of my study is to explore the urban environment from the position ofyoung children. However, the study focuses not only on the experiences of certainchildren but also on seeing the relational process of children and the societal urbanspace, ready-made by adults. I elaborated the concept of children’s lived places

(Raittila 2008) with the above-introduced ideas of the relational environment.The lived places of children emerge as a result of the relational process. The lived

place is a multidimensional, transactional process of everyday life in which human,physical, social, cultural and societal factors are present. This could be brought tolight by studying human actions in the environment. Like Thirdspace the lived places

of children intertwine the material, conceived and interpreted as well as social andcultural environments. The lived city block of children derived from the children’s

city environment and the urban childhood.The children’s city environment is constructed when children give new or old

definitions for the (adult-made) environment and use it in their own ways, actualisingthe affordances they find interesting or important to them. At the same time, theychange a small part of urban culture and the vision of urban public space, and whatmay be the children’s urban life. In turn the urban childhood take shape as the (adult-made) city environment provides children with affordances, spoken and silent rulesand customs for living in this environment. Both parts of the relation are neededwhen determining how children’s lived places look in an urban environment (Raittila2009).

To put it briefly, the new environmental culture originates from children’s livedplaces in the city. The process is continuous and constructs children’s lives and theirunderstanding of the human�environment relationship and urban culture. Theresearch of a comprehensive lived place, as indicated in my study, is an endlessissue. I suggest going by Soja (1996, 81�2), who states that the study of the Thirdspaceis reverting from epistemology to ontology. Knowledge of these places is going to be‘obtained through an endless series of theoretical and practical approximations, acritical and inquisitive nomadism in which the journeying on the new groundingsnever ceases.’ In my study, the children went on their tours with me. This allowed meto reflect on the ways in which children and the urban environment encounter oneanother. Each study can produce only some pieces of knowledge through sometheoretical angles. I am now awaiting new interesting tours through the environmentof children.

References

Alderson, P., and V. Morrow. 2011. The ethics of research with children and young people.A practical handbook, 2nd ed. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore andWashington, DC: Sage.

Ansell, N. 2009. Childhood and the politics of scale: Descaling children’s geographies?Progress in Human Geography 33, no. 2: 190�209.

Barker, R.G. 1968. Ecological psychology. Concepts and methods for studying theenvironment of human behaviour. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

International Journal of Early Years Education 277

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

9:45

09

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Cele, S. 2006. Communicating place. Methods for understanding children’s experience ofplace. Stockholm Studies in human geography 16.

Christensen, P., and A. James. 2000. Introduction. Researching children and childhood:Cultures of communication. In Research with children. Perspectives and practices, eds.P. Christensen and A. James, 1�8. London, New York: Falmer.

Clark, A., and P. Moss. 2001. Listening to young children. The mosaic approach. London:National Children’s Bureau.

De Certeau, M. 1984. The practice of everyday life. Trans. S.F. Rendell. Berkeley,Los Angeles and London: University of California press.

Conroy, H., and D. Harcourt. 2009. Informed agreement to participate: Beginning thepartnership with children in research. Early Child Development and Care 179, no. 2:157�65.

Fog Olwig, K., and E. Gulløv. 2003. Towards an anthropology of children and place. InChildren’s places. Cross-cultural perspectives, eds. K.F. Olwig and E. Gulløv, 1�19.London, New York: Routledge.

Gibson, J.J. 1968. The senses considered as perceptual system. London: Allen & Unwin.Gibson, J.J. 1979/1986. The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale: Lawrence

Erlbaum associates (Orig. pub. 1979).Grover, S. 2004. Why won’t they listen to us? On giving power and voice to children

participating in social research. Childhood 11, no. 1: 81�93.Haarni, T., M. Karvinen, H. Koskela, and S. Tani. 1997. Johdatus nykymaan-

tieteeseen [Introduction to the contemporary geography]. In Tila, paikka ja maisema.Tutkimusretkia uuteen maantieteeseen [Space, place and landscape. Expeditions to newgeography], eds. T. Haarni, M. Karvinen, H. Koskela, and S. Tani, 9�34. Tampere:Vastapaino.

Hammersley, M., and P. Atkinson. 2007. Ethnography. principles in practice, 3rd ed. London,New York: Routledge.

Harcourt, D. 2011. An encounter with children: Seeking meaning and understanding ofchildhood. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 19, no. 3: 331�43.

Harju, A. 2011. Children’s use of knowledge of place in understanding social relations.Children & Society. DOI:10.1111/j.1099-0860.2011.00396.x

Haudrup Christensen, P. 2004. Children’s participation in ethnographic research: Issues ofpower and representation. Children & Society 18: 165�76.

Heft, H., and M. Kytta. 2006. A psychologically meaningful description of environmentsrequires a relational approach. Housing, Theory and Society 23, no. 4: 210�3.

Holloway, S.L., and G. Valentine. 2000. Children’s geographies and the new social studies ofchildhood. In Children’s geographies. Playing, living, learning, eds. S.L. Holloway andG. Valentine, 1�26. London: Routledge.

James, A., and A. Prout. 1997. A new paradigm for the sociology of childhood? Provenance,promise and problems. In Constructing and deconstructing childhood. Contemporaryissues in the sociological study of childhood, eds. A. James and A. Prout, 7�33. London,New York: Falmer.

Kernan, M. 2010. Space and place as a source of belonging and participation in urbanenvironments: Considering the role of early childhood education and care settings.European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 18, no. 2: 199�213.

Kytta, M. 2003. Children in outdoor contexts. Affordances and independent mobility in theassessment of environmental child friendliness. Espoo: Teknillinen korkeakoulu.

Lefebvre, H. 1974/1991. The production of space. Trans. D. Nicholson-Smith. Cambridge,Oxford: Blackwell.

Lidskog, R. 2001. The re-naturalization of society? Environmental challenges for sociology.Current Sociology 49, no. 1: 113�36.

Maenpaa, P. 2005. Narkissos kaupungissa. Tutkimus kuluttaja-kaupunkilaisesta ja julkisestatilasta [Narkissos in the city. Study about urban consumer and public space]. Helsinki:Tammi.

Mannion, G. 2007. Going spatial, going relational: Why ‘‘listening to children’’ andchildren’s participation needs new reframing. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politicsof Education 28, no. 3: 405�20.

Massey, D. 2005. For space. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: Sage.

278 R. Raittila

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

9:45

09

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Massey, D. 2008. Kodiksi kutsuttu paikka [Place called home]. In Samanaikainen tila [Thesimultaneous space], eds. M. Lehtonen, P. Rantanen and J. Valkonen. Trans. J. Raivio,127�49. Tampere: Vastapaino.

Matthew, H. 2003. Coming of age for children’s geographies. Children’s Geographies 1, no.1: 3�5.

Matthews, H., and M. Limb. 1999. Defining an agenda for the geography of children: Reviewand prospect. Progress in Human Geography 23, no. 1: 61�90.

Raittila, R. 2008. Retkella. Lasten ja kaupunkiympariston kohtaaminen [Making a visit.Encounters between children and an urban environment]. Jyvaskyla Studies in Education,Psychology and Social Research 333. Jyvaskyla: University of Jyvaskyla.

Raittila, R. 2009. Lasten ymparisto�ympariston lapset [Children’s environment-children ofenvironment]. In Lapsuus, lapsuuden instituutiot ja lasten toiminta [Childhood, institu-tions of childhood and children’s action], eds. L. Alanen and K. Karila, 227�48. Tampere:Vastapaino.

Rasmussen, K. 2004. Places for children � Children’s places. Childhood 11, no. 2: 155�73.Soja, E. 1996. Thirdspace. Journey to Los Angeles and other real-and-imagined places.

Cambridge, MA, Oxford: Blackwell.Tani, S. 2004. Ympariston, paikan, tilan ja kulttuurin tulkintaa: maantiede ymparisto- ja

luonnontiedon oppikirjoissa [Interpretation of environment, place, space and culture:geography in books of Natural Sciences]. Terra 116, no. 3: 131�43.

Thomson, F. 2007. Are methodologies for children keeping them in their place? Children’sgeographies 5, no. 3: 207�18.

Tuan, Y.-F. 1977. Space and place. The perspective of experience. London: Edward Arnold.Walters, J. and T. Mynard. 2010. What’s so interesting outside? A study child-initiated

interaction with teachers in the natural environment. European Early ChildhoodEducation Journal 18, no. 4: 473�83.

Warming, H. 2011. Getting under their skin? Accessing young children’s perspectivesthorough ethnographic fieldwork. Childhood 18, no. 1: 39�53.

International Journal of Early Years Education 279

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f K

ent]

at 0

9:45

09

Nov

embe

r 20

14