The social and material connections of minority children and young people settled in Norway. A critical discourse review

Abstract

Being connected to people and the world around them is fundamental for children’s wellbeing and development. Based on a critical discourse review, this study compares the connections of minority children settled in Norway with two bodies of literature: one addressing majority children settled in Norway, and one addressing minority children settled elsewhere in the world, especially in the US. The study shows that knowledge on children’s connections tends to be produced and promoted by educationalists, social scientists, and social workers tending to address some aspects of children’s connections at the expense of others. Knowledge gaps are identified and discussed.

Keywords

Belonging children’s perspective integration review migration participation power perspective social inclusion social exclusion youth

Introduction

In Norway, as elsewhere in the world, many children and young people (henceforth “children”) are at risk of being marginalized and socially excluded. Among those most at risk are children with an immigrant background (Eurostat, 2022; Hyggen et al., 2018). Why these children are more loosely connected to people and the world around them is poorly understood. The individual and societal costs of these children’s disengagement in the form of dropout from school and future unemployment, disablement and low income are considerable (Haugan et al., 2019), and more knowledge is needed to figure out how their connections can be improved. As pointed out by Wall et al. (2015), knowledge and knowledge gaps tend not only to reflect, but also to reproduce existing hegemonic power. To reveal such structures of power, a critical review should be conducted aiming to examine to what extent, and in what ways, current knowledge and knowledge gaps may contribute to stabilising or worsening—rather than improving— the situation of loosely connected, immigrant children.

This paper explores research literature on how immigrant children settled in Norway connect to people and the world around them. The term connection is used as a common term covering partially overlapping terms addressing children’s relation to other people such as belonging, inclusion, exclusion, integration and participation. An analytical distinction is made between children with an immigrant background (henceforth “minority children”) and children without an immigrant background (henceforth “majority children”). By the term minority children, I do not mean to imply that children with an immigrant background have a common essence based on which they and their descendants can be defined. Like gender, social class and disability, ethnic background is rather seen as one of many fluid social characteristics associated with stigmatization and discrimination (Alanen, 2016). How children’s ethnicity intersects with other social characteristics will therefore be one of many factors explored in this paper. The main research questions are: (1) What are the main characteristics of research on minority children settled in Norway compared to (a) research on majority children settled in Norway and (b) research on minority children settled elsewhere in the world? (2) What tends not to be addressed and, hence, could be a source of concern from a children’s and power perspective?

A children’s and power perspective refers in this paper to a combination of two perspectives, that of children and that of power. The perspective includes the notion of children both as “becoming” and as “beings,” that is, as “adult in the making” lacking competencies of the adult that he or she will become, and as children actively constructing childhood through experiences and meaning making, which involves studies of what children actually do, think and feel in everyday life (Halldén, 2007). Children’s perspective can either be represented by themselves (children’s perspective), or as perceived by adults, for example, by parents or teachers, social workers and other practitioners working with children (child perspective) (Thulin and Jonsson, 2014). In this paper, a children perspective means that the focus is on research addressing children as becoming and being from their own point of view, yet as interpreted and reported by a researcher. As knowledge of children produced in research may be biased in the sense of representing the researchers’ perceptions more than children’s, the concept of power becomes relevant in the study of knowledge production of children’s connections.

The power perspective of this paper is based on Foucaults (1972) theories of the role of discourses in knowledge production. An underlying assumption is that researchers of different scientific disciplines have different perceptions of what good and important knowledge means. For example, psychologists tend to focus on mental and individually oriented risk factors, whereas sociologists tend to put more emphasis on social and structurally oriented circumstances. Hence, if a field of knowledge is dominated by one or a few disciplines, it may be biased in the sense that some types of knowledge are systematically ignored. If this bias is not revealed, structures of interest and power that have made their mark in the field of knowledge may strengthen at the expense of scientific novelty and progress and, ultimately, suppressed social groups, in this case, children in general and immigrant children in particular.

The analysis is based on a critical discourse review (CDR). CDR is one of many types of literature reviews aiming to study research literature on specific fields of knowledge in a systematic way. In contrast to most reviews, CDR does not only seek to identify and analyse what we know and do not know about these fields, but also to reveal the structures of knowledge, interests and power underpinning them (Wall et al., 2015). Revealing these structures is particularly important within academia because the knowledge produced in this context is generally regarded as more reliable than knowledge published elsewhere (Borch, 2022), and therefore is easily disseminated and spread in society. The power perspective of CDR is meant to hinder the unfortunate consequences of biased knowledge production from unfolding.

The article proceeds as follows. In the following section, I will provide an overview of the field of knowledge addressing children’s connections including what we know and do not know about this issue today. Special attention will be paid to a CDR conducted by myself (Borch, 2022) addressing research on children’s connections in highly cited, international literature (henceforth “international review”). The main results of this CDR will work as a benchmark to which the main results of the CDR of this paper (henceforth “national review”) will be compared in the discussion.

The next section describes the methodology on which the analysis is based. In this chapter, I will first describe the rationale behind this choice by defining its aims and strategies. I will then report what the sample is and how it was created and analysed.

I will examine research question 1a addressing the main characteristics of research on minority children compared to the main characteristics of research on majority children settled in Norway. The research questions 1b and 2 will be addressed in the discussion, in which I compare the results of the national review with the results of the international (Borch, 2022). From these comparisons in and across national and international samples of research, the knowledge production and knowledge gaps in research on children’s connections will be revealed, and the observations that may cause concerns from a children’s and power perspective will be identified and discussed.

Minority Children’s connections and the academic literature addressing them

Being connected to people and the world around us is a basic human need and is even more crucial for children who depend on other people’s concerns (Over, 2016). Although fundamental for children’s being and becoming, research on children’s connection does not represent a well-established research field but is rather spread over many partially overlapping fields addressing familiar subjects such as children’s wellbeing and child poverty. In this fragmented field of knowledge, some bodies of literature nevertheless stand out as more relevant than others. One of them addresses immigrant children’s belonging, inclusion, exclusion, integration or participation. A background review (Sandelowski and Barros, 2007) conducted by me (Borch, 2022) shows, amongst others, that minority children feel strongest connected to family and same-ethnic and different-ethnic peers (Kiang and Fuligni, 2009). In these connections, minority children may face extra challenges (Portes, 1995; Portes and Rumbaut, 2001). Different expectations from their parents and other people in children’s life may cause conflicts (Ghuman, 1997), and different practices and appearance may cause bullying and discrimination amongst different-ethnic peers (Correa‐Velez et al., 2010). According to Raabe and Beelmann (2011), children start distinguishing between same-ethnic and different-ethnic peers by three and 4 years of age and peak in prejudice between four and 7 years of age. Killen et al. (2013) found that children between 7 and 13 years of age tend to reject exclusions of children only justified by stereotypes, whereas older children are more likely to accept the rejections of younger children if the group’s functioning is at stake. Youth who are not well-liked by their peers tend to be part of other rejected youths, and the position “outside” may make it difficult to learn the practices that are needed to be part of the larger group (Brown, 2004). For refugee youths, establishing a sense of belonging to their host country in early resettlement is fundamental for their well-being (Correa-Valez et al., 2010). School belonging, in brief, referring to a feeling of not being included, valued, and accepted at school (Goodenow and Grady, 1993), is a prerequisite for academic engagement and achievement (Craggs and Kelly, 2019), reduces absentee and dropout rates (Korpershoek et al., 2020) and seems to affect how youths connect to people and the world outside school (Gulløy, 2017). Further, playing and watching sports can be a way of connecting to other peers, especially for boys, and for some, engaging in these activities may be a way of “making it” in a new country (Amara et al., 2004). Also, public spaces like parks can increase the connection between same-ethnic and different-ethnic peers simply by being available for all people regardless of economic background (Seeland et al., 2009).

The background review constituted the theoretical foundation of a paper reporting the main results of a CDR of highly cited international literature on children’s connections. The CDR showed that the most cited literature addressing this issue tends to be published in psychology journals and to have psychologists as first authors. The literature also tends to address children older than 5 years of age settled in the US. Emphasis is put on children’s connections to schools, peers and places, and the studies are for the most part based on surveys. As the field of knowledge is dominated by psychologists, some aspects tend to be more researched than others. For example, the material and digital aspects of children’s everyday life tend to be neglected, which was interpreted as a source of concern, the importance of these aspects in children’s everyday life considered. Today, most young people have access to personal computers and smart phones (Marlowe et al., 2017), and technologies like these can be both objects of affiliation and means bridging connections to people and surroundings. As it takes time to accumulate citations, the sample of literature examined in the international CDR only included articles published before 2016. To what extent the review shows an updated picture of research on children’s connections outside the US is therefore underexamined and needs to be further studied. This paper follows up on this call by addressing research on minority children settled in Norway. As described in the next chapter, the methodology is the same, but the focus is not only on highly cited papers.

Methodology

Critical discourse review (CDR)

Literature review is a common term covering many types of methodologies aiming at providing an overview of previous research and knowledge gaps often in “systematic” ways, that is, in ways that are transparent and are following acknowledged standards (Petticrew and Roberts, 2006). One of these typologies is critical review, which tend to critically evaluate old concepts, theories, models etc. and replace or supplement them with new (Sutton et al., 2019). The main criticism towards review methodologies in general is that they increase the scientific biases they once were developed to reduce by reproducing ideologies created by scientific elites at the expense of scientific progress (Hunt, 1997; Wall et al., 2015). Wall et al. (2015) therefore introduce a new type of critical review, CDR, aiming to reduce this risk of (re)producing ideological hegemonies. The authors make a distinction between CDR based on the theories of Habermas and CDR based on Foucault. Whereas the former CDR aims to analyze communication processes in micro-contexts, the purpose of the latter is to reveal structures of knowledge and power at macro-level in and outside academia. A background review¹ conducted as part of this paper yields several examples of CDRs based on Habermas’s approach and qualitative methodologies. This must be seen in the context that communication processes in micro-contexts are situated and, hence, best examined through qualitative research techniques. This paper is, however, based on the Foucauldian type combining qualitative and quantitative techniques. The Foucauldian-based mixed method strategy enables us to reveal dominant discourses at macro-level in a way that aligns with larger scientific trends such as the increasing body of discourse analyses and reviews combining qualitative and quantitative research techniques (Rouleau et al., 2023; Tamássy and Géring, 2022; Xiao and Li, 2021). In fact, according to Gough et al. (2017), most review studies labelled as either “qualitative” or “quantitative” are, in practice, combining these techniques.

The sample

The sample includes peer-reviewed articles or book chapters which address:

• Children’s connections in the title by combining a term of children (child*, young*, peer*, youth*, kid*, teen*, and adolescent*) and a term of connection (belong*, inclu*, exclu*, integrat*, and participat*)

• Children settled in Norway.

• Children who are in school or student age, that is, up to and including 25 years old.

• Children’s connections from a children’s perspective. Articles addressing children from an adult perspective are therefore not included. Exceptions are when the adults represent the perspective of children who may have difficulties expressing their view, such as preschool children and children with certain kinds of disabilities.

• Children’s connections in everyday life. Articles dealing with children’s connections to events going on for a predetermined period, such as research projects and interventions, are excluded.

Further, articles not written in the Norwegian or English language were excluded. Every third article (33%) of the final sample were written in Norwegian. As shown in Table 1, 150 articles were included in the final sample.

Table 1.

Search strategy.

Number of searches	Search period	Name of source	Type of source	Number of articles sent to Rayyan after duplication test in EndNote	Number of articles included in the final sample
1	20.4.21–4.5.21	Google scholar	Search engine	30	30
2	4.5.21–17.5.22	Google scholar	Search engine	5	5
3	18.5.22	Web of science	International database	220	94
4	20.5.22	Scopus	International database	189	94
5	20.5.22	IDUNN	National database	1	1
6	20.5.22–21.5.22	ORIA	International database	16	16
7	22.5.22	BARN	National journal	4	4
					150

Overall, seven searches were conducted from April 2021 to May 2022.

From 150 articles, three samples were obtained:

• Sample 1 includes 26 articles addressing minority children.

• Sample 2 includes 124 articles dealing with majority children.

• Sample 3 includes all 150 articles, including both minority and majority children.

Sample 1 is the focus of this article. Samples 2 and 3 were analysed for comparison reasons. An overview of the articles with complete references is provided in this paper’s Appendix.

The analysis

Based on Habermas’ notion of situated discourses, Wall et al. (2015) describe seven steps in conducting CDR: (1) identifying the problem, (2) specifying the literature, (3) developing codes for validity claims, (4) analysing content and coding, (5) reading and interpreting, (6) explaining the findings, and (7) engaging in critical reflexivity. Although the process is qualitatively oriented, some quantitative techniques can be included in phase 4, in which researchers are encouraged to identify frequencies of the coding as it will assist the interpretations in phase 5. This paper follows this advice by basing the coding and the analysis in phase 4 and 5 on statistical analysis. As such, the analysis copies two of the three-step process of the mixed method discourse analysis of companies web-pages described by Géring (2021), in which she first used qualitative methodologies to identify features of the discourses through an iterative process, then coded the features into quantitative measures and analysed their frequency and clustering into groups, and finally, conducted a qualitative analysis of selected features. The last step is cut as the main aim of the review is not to conduct a thick discourse analysis of selected features, but rather to provide an overview of discourse and discursive gaps.

The qualitatively oriented process of identifying and coding discursive features was conducted as part of the international review (cf. Borch, 2022). To be able to compare research results across reviews, the coding of the national review is largely the same as that of the international, yet some adjustments have been made. For example, economic and material aspects of children’s everyday life are coded in the national review, as they were considered knowledge gaps in the international review. Also, the roles of social work and welfare services are coded in the national review, as they were far more present in this sample of research than in the international.

In the qualitative analysis, the discursive features were identified by reading the papers of the sample and coding them into NVivo. Discursive features refer in this paper to characteristics of the research considered important in discourse analysis (Géring, 2021), such as characteristics of the journal (e.g., its scientific discipline), the children (e.g., whether the children had an immigrant background or not) and the context (e.g., in what country and in what setting the study was conducted – the school, at home, in leisure time etc.). In the quantitative analysis, the identified discursive features were first coded as dummy variables in a SPSS matrix and analysed through frequency analyses showing the percentage of articles addressing the identified discursive features. Then, the discursive features were analysed through factor analyses, which cluster sets of discursive features so that the features with in the same group (called a discourse) are more similar (in some sense) to each other than to those in other groups (discourses). During the analysis, the number of discursive features included with in the discourses was systematically and successively reduced. First, all features with fewer than four units and the other-categories were excluded. Next, the features with a score lower than .5 were excluded one by one. Finally, factors which gave no substantial meaning were removed. To assist the process of making meaning of the statistical research, typical examples of articles fulfilling all the discursive features of each factor were identified in the SPSS matrix and briefly described.

Finally, the statistical analyses conducted in the national review were given meaning by comparing the results with the results of the international review (cf. Borch, 2022). Also, sources of concerns regarding the production of knowledge (and lack thereof) were discussed from a children’s and power perspective.

Although both reviews provide important insights about children’s connections, it should be noted that the two studies are not completely comparable, amongst other things because the international sample of research only includes highly cited literature, whereas the latter sample includes all literature regardless of the number of citations. Neither these differences, nor the differences described above regarding coding and terminology are, however, affecting the research conclusions of this paper in significant ways.

Research results based on reviews are often regarded as more robust than primary studies amongst other things because they are synthesising the research results of several studies and not only of one (e.g., Petticrew and Roberts, 2006). Yet, as also reviews are creative processes involving choices made by individual researchers or research groups, reviews may have different research results and conclusions (Borch et al., 2024; Petticrew and Roberts, 2006). For example, it is reasonable to believe that my background as a consumption researcher with a special interest in the role of poverty, social inequality and political economy, to some extent, have influenced the research conclusions by highlighting the role of material in children’s connections – at the expense of the connections of children with atypical gender expressions or gender incongruity, amongst others. The creative and subjective aspects of all research must be considered in the interpretation of this paper’s research results.

Discursive features and their frequencies

Table 2 shows the discursive features identified in the qualitative analysis.

Table 2.

Discourse features.

Categories of discursive features	Discursive features	Specifications
Concepts	Term of connection in title	Belonging, inclusion, exclusion, integration, participation.
Spokesmen	Journals’ discipline	Social science, education, psychology, social work, health.
	1st author’s discipline	Social science, education, psychology, social work, health.
	Document type	Article or book chapter.
Context	Year of publication
	Country in which the research take place	USA, Europe, Australia, Canada, etc.
	Arena at which the research take place	Homes, schools, organized leisure activities, unorganized leisure activities, welfare services.
	Arena at which the connections take place	Homes, schools, organized leisure activities, unorganized leisure activities, digital media.
Children	Demography	Age group, immigrant background, poor family background, disability, poor.
Connections	Object of children’s affiliation	Family, peers, geographical areas, things or activities.
Methods	Research methodology	Qualitative, quantitative, review, experiment.
Everyday life	Material or economic aspects of children’s everyday life	Material and economic dimension are mentioned at least once.
Strength of feature	Number of citation	In google scholar.

As shown in Table 2, the discursive features identified address the concepts used to explain children’s connections, the spokespersons, context, children, objects of affiliation and the research methodology. The discursive features are, for the most part, self-explanatory. It should, however, be noted that the feature “object of affiliation” tends to overlap the feature “arena at which the connected are played out,” yet they are not the same. For example, the object of affiliation may be peers, but the arena at which children’s connections are played out may be schools. Regarding the specifications, note that “health” (spokesperson) includes health-related disciplines like medicine, nursing, and physiotherapy, that “welfare service” (arena at which the research takes place) includes all institutions offering welfare services such as orphan homes and family protection offices. Note also that “activity” encompasses for the most part children’s participation in sport and in decision‐making processes typically taking place in orphan homes and family protection offices. The economic and material aspects of children’s everyday life and the rationale behind this code are explained in the methodological chapter. In accordance with the international review, the articles’ number of citations was identified as a discursive feature indicating the article’s strength (importance) in the field.

Table 3 shows the frequency analyses of the discursive features of research in the three samples of articles dealing with minority children, majority children and children in general.

Table 3.

Number of articles addressing children’s connections (samples 1, 2, and 3).

	Sample 1: Minority children (N = 26)	Sample 2: Majority children (N = 124)	Sample 3: Children in general (N = 150)	Parsons chi-square on the difference between samples 1 and 2 (N = 150)
Term in title
Belonging	10 (39%)	12 (10%)	22 (15%)	0.000***
Inclusion	3 (12%)	6 (4%)	9 (6%)	0.191
Exclusion	5 (19%)	4 (3%)	9 (6%)	0.002**
Integration	3 (12%)	5 (4%)	8 (5%)	0.121
Participation	8 (31%)	100 (82%)	109 (73%)	0.000***
Year of publication
2000–2009	6 (23%)	24 (19%)	30 (20%)	0.666
2010–2019	14 (54%)	65 (52%)	79 (53%)	0.895
2020–2022	6 (23%)	29 (23%)	35 (23%)	0.973
Discipline of journal
Social sciences	8 (31%)	16 (13%)	25 (17%)	0.034*
Education	11 (42%)	31 (25%)	41 (27%)	0.060
Psychology	2 (8%)	16 (13%)	18 (12%)	0.457
Social work	2 (8%)	24 (19%)	26 (17%)	0.153
Health	0	22 (18%)	22 (15%)	0.020*
Other	1 (4%)	6 (5%)	7 (5%)	0.827
Discipline of 1st author
Social science	9 (35%)	20 (16%)	29 (19%)	0.030*
Education	6 (23%)	37 (30%)	43 (29%)	0.488
Psychology	2 (8%)	11 (9%)	13 (9%)	0.846
Social work	4 (15%)	19 (15%)	23 (15%)	0.994
Health	2 (8%)	20 (16%)	22 (15%)	0.269
Other/not found	3 (12%)	8 (7%)	11 (7%)	0.366
Publication format
Article	25 (96%)	115 (93%)	140 (93%)	0.526
Book chapter	1 (4%)	9 (7%)	10 (7%)	0.526
Children’s age
0–5	4 (15%)	27 (22%)	31 (21%)	0.464
6–12	3 (12%)	24 (19%)	27 (18%)	0.346
13–16	12 (46%)	47 (38%)	59 (39%)	0.434
17–19	4 (15%)	36 (29%)	40 (27%)	0.152
20+	6 (23%)	10 (8%)	16 (11%)	0.024*
Not specified	2 (7%)	14 (12%)	16 (11%)	0.589
Group of children
Majority children	8 (31%)	76 (61%)	84 (56%)	0.004**
Disability	0	20 (16%)	20 (13%)	0.028*
Poor	2 (8%)	3 (2%)	5 (3%)	0.173
Children in care	1 (4%)	13 (11%)	14 (9%)	0.290
Other vulnerable groups	0	11 (9%)	11 (7%)	0.115
Arena
Home	2 (8%)	5 (4%)	7 (5%)	0.421
(Pre)school	10 (39%)	39 (32%)	49 (33%)	0.488
Organised leisure time	6 (23%)	36 (29%)	42 (28%)	0.539
Unorganised leisure time	6 (23%)	21 (17%)	27 (18%)	0.459
Welfare service	2 (8%)	26 (21%)	28 (19%)	0.114
Other/not specified	10 (39%)	12 (10%)	22 (15%)	0.000***
Object of affiliation
Family	3 (12%)	6 (5%)	9 (6%)	0.191
Peers	13 (50%)	19 (15%)	32 (21%)	0.000***
Geographical areas	9 (35%)	6 (5%)	15 (10%)	0.000***
Materials	0	3 (2%)	3 (2%)	0.423
Activities	9 (35%)	67 (54%)	76 (51%)	0.072
(Pre)schools	3 (12%)	21 (17%)	24 (16%)	0.495
Other/not specified	3 (12%)	14 (11%)	17 (11%)	0.971
Method
Qualitative	20 (77%)	62 (50%)	82 (55%)	0.012*
Quantitative	4 (15%)	44 (36%)	48 (32%)	0.046
Other	2 (8%)	19 (15%)	21 (14%)	0.308
Material-economic dimensions
Materiality	12 (46%)	20 (16%)	32 (21%)	0.001**
Economy	10 (39%)	37 (30%)	47 (31%)	0.245
Citation
0–6	11 (42%)	45 (36%)	56 (37%)	0.564
6–20	9 (35%)	39 (32%)	48 (32%)	0.753
21–388	6 (23%)	40 (32%)	46 (31%)	0.356

Notes. Univariate frequencies and bivariate cross table analysis (N = 96, 19, 77); ***p < .001, **p < .01, * = p < .05.

Table 3 indicates that most articles dealing with minority children settled in Norway use the terms belonging or participation in the title. The articles were published between 2000 and 2022. The number increased from the 2000s to the 2010s and seems to increase even further in the 2020s. The increase in publications in this area most likely reflects the massive increase in publication of scientific articles observed in science in the last decades (Gusenbauer, 2021).

Most articles dealing with minority children’s connections are published in education and social scientific journals and have social scientific and educational researchers as first author. The children explored are for the most part 13–16-year-olds. How children’s minority background intersects with children in other vulnerable situations is seldom explored. One in three articles (8) deal with both minority and majority children.

The object of affiliation was most frequently peers, and the connections were usually explored in a school context. Economic and material conditions were mentioned in less than 50% of the articles, yet only three of these articles addressed these aspects as main subjects. These were written by Rysst (2014), Bratt (2004) and Hovde (2019) and dealt with the role of goods and services like clothes, alcohol and music in children or youth’s connections to peers.

When comparing the sample of articles addressing minority children and children in general, several differences can be observed. Articles dealing with children in general more frequently use the term participation in the title. A higher share has health-related professions as spokesperson, and a smaller proportion has social scientists. They more likely address children with disabilities, and less likely children in the age of 20+. They have less frequently peers and geographical areas as objects of affiliation, and the arenas in which connections are played out are more frequently specified. Material conditions are less likely to be mentioned, and the method is less likely to be qualitative.

Minority children addressed by social scientists and educationalists

Table 4 shows how the discursive features tend to make three discourses dealing with minority children.

Table 4.

Factors of articles addressing the connections of minority children (sample 1).

	1: Social scientific discourse on social inclusion	2: Educational discourse on preschool children	3: Discourse on sport participation
Term in title: inclu*	0.620
Journal: social science	0.537
1st author: social science	0.737
1st author: education	−0.542
Object of affiliation: family	0.683
Object of affiliation: preschools	0.811
Citation: 21–388	0.545
Journal: education		0.717
Type of children: 0–5 year-olds		0.737
Arena: (pre)school		0.845
Object of affiliation: peers		0.701
Term in title: belong*			−0.726
Term in title: participat*			0.596
Arena: organized leisure activity			0.564
Total explained variance	26.877	29.596	14.011

Note. Factor analyses (N = 26).

As shown in Table 4, one of the discourses dealing with minority children addresses social inclusion of children and is for the most part published in social scientific journals and have a social scientist as first author. The discourse encompasses several arenas like schools and organized and unorganized leisure activities and tends to have both families and schools as objects of affiliation. The discourse also tends to be more frequently cited than others. A typical example of this discourse is an article written by the sociologist Katrine Fangen published in 2010 entitled “Social exclusion and inclusion of young immigrants: Presentation of an analytical framework”. In this article, Fangen explores how young adult immigrants with diverse backgrounds experience social exclusion at different social arenas and distinguishes between educational exclusion, labour market exclusion, spatial exclusion, relational exclusion and socio-political exclusion. By combining information from macro-oriented quantitative research and structural explanations on the one hand and micro-oriented qualitative research and agency on the other, Fangen argues that a holistic picture of social exclusion which underlines its dynamic, complex and multi-dimensional character is made.

The second discourse addresses the preschool children’s connections with peers in preschool contexts. For the most part, these studies are published in educational journals and have an educationalist as first author. A typical example of this discourse is an article written by Sidsel Boldermo entitled “Fleeting moments: young children’s negotiations of belonging and togetherness” published in 2020. Here, Boldermo explores what characterises two-year-olds’ negotiations of belonging and togetherness in a diverse peer group in kindergarten. She finds no differences along ethnic or cultural lines yet underlines that the peer culture already at this age includes the application of hierarchies and symbol systems, which calls for kindergarten teachers’ awareness to secure inclusive practices for young children.

The third discourse addresses children’s participation in organized leisure activities, for the most part sports. The discourse has no particular spokesperson and appears in this respect to be interdisciplinary. Articles of this discourse tend to use the term participation in the title, which seems reasonable considering that sport is an activity and not an emotion. The discourse can be exemplified by an article written by Tove Andersen Younis published in 2010. Based on qualitative interviews of minority girls, the article explores how these girls experience the situation of not participating in organized leisure activities. The article supports previous studies indicating that minority girls experience marginalization and face various kinds of barriers hindering their participation in organized leisure activities. Further, lack of motivation, religion and tradition/cultural differences are most frequently used to explain why they do not take part. Discrimination/racism and class/economic resources may play a role, according to Younis (2010), although the girls rarely mention them.

Children in general are addressed by educationalists and social workers

Table 5 shows the discourses addressing the connections of children in general.

Table 5.

Factors addressing the connections of children in general (sample 3).

	1: Educational discourse on preschool children	2: Social work discourse on children in care
Journal: education	0.664
Journal: social work	−0.506	0.552
1st author: education	0.569
Children’s age: 0–5 years	0.618
Arena: education	0.752
Object of affiliation: activity	−0.625
1st author: social work	−0.450	0.551
Type of children: children in care	−0.453	0.551
Arena: welfare service	−0.562	0.608
Method: qualitative	0.425	0.680
Method: quantitative	−0.301	−0.778
Total variance explained	30.484	22.943

Note. Factor analyses (N = 150).

In Table 5, two discourses on the connections of children in general can be identified. One is similar to the educational discourse identified in the sample of articles addressing minority children in the sense of being published by educational journals and having educationalists as first author. However, whereas the discourse on minority children tends not to be published by social scientific journals, this discourse tends not to be published in social work journals and to have a social worker as first author. Nor does it tend to have peers as objects of affiliation. A typical example of this discourse is an article written by Ree et al. (2019) addressing children’s conceptions of how to get access to communities in Norwegian Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC). Based on interviews with five-year-olds, the article concludes that children regard trust, responsibility for others, adapting to the institutional rules, freedom to choose and refuse community, and common ground as important hallmarks of participation.

The second discourse addresses children in care and tends to be published in social work journals and to have a social worker as first author. To some extent, the discourse seems to be a negation of the first discourse in the sense that it does not tend to be published in educational journals and to have an educationalist as first author. The factor is for the most part based on qualitative and not quantitative methodologies. An example of this discourse is an article written by Seim and Slettebø (2017) discussing conditions for developing participatory relationships with children in child welfare services based on observations made in three research projects. Despite a growth of interest in children’s participation in recent years, research shows that children often do not participate when their families are in contact with the child welfare services.

Sources of concern from a children’s and power perspective

The analysis of this paper indicates that the field of knowledge addressing the connections of children in Norway tends to be divided between three academic disciplines: educational research, social science, and social work. This observation differs from the international review showing that highly cited literature on children’s connections tends to be published in psychology journals and to have psychologists as first authors (Borch, 2022). The contributions of the three disciplines can be seen as complementary in the sense of addressing research subjects that the disciplines are especially trained to address. However, the analysis also reveals that important aspects of children’s connections have not been covered.

One observation worth discussing is the discourse addressing preschool children’s connections to peers primarily produced and promoted by educationalists. As no focus on preschool children was observed in the international review (cf. Borch, 2022), the national review seems to provide an important supplement to this literature. That said, some of the attention paid to the preschool children may have been at the expense of another important observation made in the international review, namely a discourse addressing school belonging (Borch, 2022). School belonging is a well-established field of knowledge elsewhere in the world, especially in the US and Australia (Slaten et al., 2016). Cf. Korpershoek et al. (2020), significant risk factors of poor school belonging are high absentee and dropout rates. At stake are young people’s chance to complete their education and to create an economically independent adult life, as well as the society’s chance to serve the needs of competence in the labour market and in the society at large. Children spend much of their awake time at school, in which connections to peers in and outside schools are established, strengthened, weakened, and closed (Gulløy, 2017). Given the importance of schools in children’s life, the lack of research on school belonging seems striking.

Also, the discourse developed and promoted by social workers addressing the participation of children in care in decision‐making regarding their future is worth discussing. According to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, § 12, children in care have a right to participate in decision-making regarding their future. If this right is not practiced, the situation of these children may worsen (Seim and Slettebø, 2017). In the international study, a discourse on children in care was not identified (Borch, 2022). The social workers’ focus on children’s participation in decision making seems in this respect to be exemplary and should be strengthened to cover up for the lack of international research on this topic. However, 28% children under the care of orphan homes have a minority background (Bufdir, 2021). As these children’s needs may differ from those of the majority of children in care, more emphasis should be put on the situation of minority children.

Third, this study confirms the lack of research addressing the material aspects of children’s everyday life that also was observed in the international review (Borch, 2022). This observation too can be traced back to the disciplines dominating research on the connections of children settled in Norway (educational research, the social sciences and social work) as the material aspects of children’s life traditionally have been paid little attention within these disciplines, in Norway, as elsewhere in the world. The lack of focus on the material aspects of children’s everyday life is puzzling. Materials are part of everything we do. Even sleeping naked at night involved materials in the form of a bed, bedclothes etc. Lacking materials – be it in the form of essentials like food, clothes, shelter, or in the form of “luxuries” like snacks and designer products reduce our chance of being connected to people and the world around us. The lack of focus on the role of the materials in children’s life is therefore a serious knowledge gap which should be addressed in further research. As part of this, more attention should be paid to children’s connections to technologies like digital/social media and the role of these technologies in mediating the connections children play out at different arenas – at school, at home, and in leisure activities. Today, 98% of 9–18-year-olds settled in Norway have their own mobile phone. 68% of 13–18-year-olds report that they spend “much time” on social media (78% girls and 58% boys) and 39% spend much time on gaming (53% boys and 19% girls) (Medietilsynet, 2020). Although minority children have a higher risk of being technologically deprived than children in general (Ayllón et al., 2021), it is reasonable to believe that they spend much time online. Considering the key role technology most likely plays in minority children’s lives, the lack of research addressing this aspect causes concerns.

Finally, the analysis has revealed interdisciplinary discourse addressing minority children’s lack of participation in sports. Minority children’s lack of participation in sports may, to some extent, reflect that 60% of poor children in Norway have a minority background (Normann and Epland, 2022), and therefore may not afford taking part in these activities (Rysst, 2014). In Norway, minority children’s lack of participation in sports has caused concerns and more research aiming to increase their participation has been announced. That said, the discourse can also be associated with an observation that I made in the international review showing that articles addressing minority children tend to use the term belonging in the title, whereas articles addressing majority children tend to use the term participation (Borch, 2022). As belonging primarily refers to a feeling and participation is associated with action, the use of terms in these articles implicitly suggests that majority children are more active and, hence, have more agency (clout) than minority children. In this perspective, the discourse addressing minority children’s lack of participation in sports and the well-intended concerns regarding this observation can be seen as some of many signs implicitly suppressing minority children and others to believe that they do not live up to expected standards of the majority society.

Overall, these observations indicate that the children’s perspective in research addressing children’s connections is biased in the sense of representing the adult perspective more than children’s own perspective. Rather than focusing on school belonging and the material and digital aspects of everyday life, research on children’s connections tend to address subjects that traditionally are regarded as important in the scientific disciplines dominating the field. For example, compared to researchers from other scientific disciplines, educationalists have tended to focus on preschool children’s connections to peers in kindergarten, social scientists have paid attention to minority children’s belonging to place, and social workers have concentrated on majority children in welfare services. From a children’s and power perspective, a bias like this indicates that important knowledge is not produced – at the expense of scientific progress in areas that could have enhanced the situation of children in general and minority children.

Conclusion

In this paper, the field of knowledge addressing the connections of minority children settled in Norway has been compared with familiar fields of knowledge: one addressing the connections of majority children in Norway, and one addressing the connections of minority children settled elsewhere in the world, primarily in the US. A main observation is that the field of knowledge is dominated by a limited number of academic disciplines tending to address different aspects of children’s connections: Educationalists have focused more on preschool children’s connections to peers in kindergarten than other disciplines, social scientists have paid more attention to minority children’s belonging to place, and social workers have emphasised the participation of majority children in welfare services. Although this division of labour allows disciplines to focus on research they traditionally have been specialized to address, many concerns have remained unexamined. For example, there is a lack of research on children’s connections to school, and on the role of digital media in mediating children’s connections to people and the world around them. More attention should also be paid to minority children in care, and the ethics of the perceptions of minority children underpinning research should be critically analysed. If these concerns are not addressed, either by the disciplines that are dominating this field of knowledge today, or by new disciplines that traditionally have put more emphasis on these aspects in their studies, the hegemonic power of academic discourses dominating the field of knowledge today may continue, at the expense of scientific progress and the suppressed children that might have benefited from it.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The paper is written as part of the project “Practices and policies of belonging among minority and majority children of low-income families” (BELONG) financed by the Research Council of Norway.

ORCID iD

Anita Borch

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Norges Forskningsråd; 314290.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Note

Appendix

Overview of articles addressing minority children (sample 1). The articles’ number of citation on Google scholar measured from 5.5.22–12.6.22 are included.

	Reference	Title	Further publication data	Number of citations
Belonging	Rysst (2014)	Det koster å være kul. Om teenagers opplevelse av tilhørighet i en flerkulturell setting i Oslo. [The costs of being cool. On teenagers’ experiences of belonging in multicultural settings in Oslo.]	Tidsskrift for ungdomsforskning, 5(2): 5-25.	26
	Engebrigtsen (2014)	Perspektiver på autonomi, tilhørighet og kjønn blant ungdom. [Perspectives on autonomy, belonging and gender among youth.]	Tidsskrift for ungdomsforskning, 7(2): 63-84.	12
	Ruud, M. E. (2018)	Strategier for stedstilhørighet blant ungdom i byer og tettsteder i endring. [Strategies for place belonging among youth in urban and rural areas.]	In Seim, S. and Sæther, O. Barn og unge: By, sted og sosiomaterialitet. Oslo, Cappelen Damm Akademisk: 39-57.	2
	Boldermo (2020)	Fleeting moments: young children’s negotiations of belonging and togetherness.	Journal of Early Years Education, 28(2): 136-150.	8
	Hovde (2019)	Complexity in Global Musical Belongings: Post-human Methodology in Analysis of Marginalized Teenagers in Oslo.	Qualitative Inquiry, 25(7): 680-689.	0
	Johansen and Varvin (2020)	Negotiating identity at the intersection of family legacy and present time life conditions: A qualitative exploration of central issues connected to identity and belonging in the lives of children of refugees.	Journal of Adolescence, 80: 1-9.	3
	Kalkman and Clark (2017)	Here we like playing princesses–newcomer migrant children’s transitions within day care: exploring role play as an indication of suitability and home and belonging.	European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, 25(2): 292-304.	41
	Kleive (2017)	Belonging and discomfort: Young hindu religiosity in rural Norway.	Nordic Journal of Religion and Society, 30(1): 43-60.	4
	Steen-Olsen (2013)	Cultural belonging and peer relations among young people in multi-ethnic Norwegian suburbs.	Nordic studies in education, 33(4): 314-328.	11
Inclusion and/or exclusion	Lagestad and Mestad (2018)	Inkludering av minoritetsspråklige elever i kroppsøvingsfaget – utfordringer og strategier med utgangspunkt i et lærerperspektiv. [Including minority language pupils in physical education – challenges and strategies from a learning perspective.]	Journal for Research in Arts and Sports Education, 2(3): 18-33.	4
	Rysst (2011)	“Skal du på klubben?”: sosial inkludering og ekskludering blant barn på et multi-etnisk sted i Oslo.” [Going to the club? Social inclusion and exclusion among children in a multi-ethnic local society in Oslo.]	Barn, 2, 47–66.	2
	Fangen (2010)	Social exclusion and inclusion of young immigrants: Presentation of an analytical framework.	Young, 18(2), 133–156.	155
	Vik (2018)	Språkkartlegging av flerspråklige barn – ekskludering i praksis? [Linguistic mapping of multilingual children – exclusion in practice?]	Barn, 2, 11-28.	7
	Fangen (2009)	Sosial ekskludering av unge med innvandrerbakgrunn: den relasjonelle, stedlige og politiske dimensjonen. [Social exclusion of young people with immigrant background: the relational, special and political dimension.]	Tidsskrift for ungdomsforskning, 9(2): 91-112.	24
	Kalkman et al. (2017)	Do you want this?’ Exploring newcomer migrant girls’ peer reception in Norwegian day care: Experiences with social exclusion through the exchange of self-made artefacts.	Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 18(1): 23-38.	0
Integration	Eide (2007)	Recognition and social integration: The interpretation of children on the move.	Language and Intercultural Communication, 7(2): 122-132.	13
	Lauglo (2017)	Does ethnic identification promote integration into the larger society? A study of youth in Oslo.	Ethnicities, 17(3): 392-417.	11
	Martiny et al. (2020)	Young immigrants in Norway: The role of national and ethnic identity in immigrants’ integration.	Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 61(2): 312-324.	14
Participation	Enoksen (2020)	Opplevingar og erfaringar med å delta i ein organisert fritidsaktivitet for jenter med minoritetsbakgrunn – “Jentegruppen”.“ [Experiences of participation in an organised activity for girls with minority backgrounds – “Jentegruppen”]	Barn, 38(3): 11-22.	0
	Younis (2010)	På lag? - Minoritetsjenter som ikke deltar i organiserte fritidsaktiviteter. [On team? – Minority girls who do not participate in organized leisure activities.]	Norsk pedagogisk tidskrift 94(2): 136-147.	9
	Fylkesnes et al. (2018)	Precarious participation: Exploring ethnic minority youth's narratives about out-of-home placement in Norway.	Children and Youth Services Review, 88: 341-347.	21
	Kjelaas (2020)	«Ja, da begynner vi rett på Amir, det som er, er at du har en mamma 25 som døde i 2009, stemmer det?”– Om enslige asylbarns deltakelse i samtaler med miljøarbeidere i barnevernet. [“Yes, then we start with Amir, your mother died in 2009, correct?” – On single asylum children’s participation in conversations about milieu therapists in child welfare.]	Barn, 35(2-3).	0
	Bratt (2004)	Fights among adolescents from the ethnic majority and from immigrant groups - The impact of alcohol consumption and participation in youth-based out-of-home activities.	Acta Sociologica, 47(1): 7-29.	17
	Lidén and Rusten (2007)	Asylum, participation and the best interests of the child: New lessons from Norway.	Children and Society, 21(4): 273-283.	49
	Rinde and Kenny (2021)	Music in the school life of newly arrived migrant children: potential paths to participation and belonging.	Music Education Research, 23(5): 622-633.	0
	Svantorp-Tveiten et al. (2021)	Protein, Creatine, and Dieting Supplements Among Adolescents: Use and Associations With Eating Disorder Risk Factors, Exercise-, and Sports Participation, and Immigrant Status.	Frontiers in Sports and Active Living, 3.	2

References

Alanen

(2016) ‘Intersectionality’ and other challenges to theorizing childhood. Childhood 23(2): 157–161.

Amara

Aquilina

Argent

, et al. (2004) The roles of sport and education in the social inclusion of asylum seekers and refugees: An evaluation of policy and practice in the UK. Loughborough University.

Ayllón

Holmarsdottir

Lado

(2021) Digitally deprived children in Europe. DigiGen - Working Paper Series No. 3. https://www.digigen.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Digitally-deprived-children-in-Europe-DigiGen-working-paper-series-no.-3.pdf

Boldermo

(2020) Fleeting moments: young children’s negotiations of belonging and togetherness. International Journal of Early Years Education 28(2): 136–150.

Borch

(2022) Children’s connections to people and the world around them. A critical discourse review of academic literature. Social Inclusion 10(4): 39–52.

Borch

Thorvik

Ødemark

, et al. (2024) Kunnskapsoppsummeringer for Samfunnsvitere. Oslo, Norway: Cappelen Damm Akademisk.

Bratt

(2004) Fights among adolescents from the ethnic majority and from immigrant groups - the impact of alcohol consumption and participation in youth-based out-of-home activities. Acta Sociologica 47(1): 7–29.

Brown

(2004) Adolescents’ relationships with peers. In: Lemer

Steinberg

(eds). The handbook of adolescent psychology. Wiley, 363–394.

Bufdir (2021) Barnevernstiltak til barn med innvandrerbakgrunn. The Norwegian Directorate for Children, Youth and Family Affairs (Bufdir). https://www.bufdir.no/Statistikk_og_analyse/Barnevern/Barnevernstiltak_blant_barn_med_ulik_landbakgrunn/

10.

Correa‐Velez

Gifford

Barnett

(2010) Longing to belong: Social inclusion and well‐being among youth with refugee backgrounds in the first three years in Melbourne, Australia. Social Science & Medicine 71: 1399–1408.

11.

Craggs

Kelly

(2019) Adolescents’ experiences og school belonging: a qualitative meta-synthesis. Journal of Youth Studies 21(10): 1411–1425.

12.

Eurostat (2022) Children at risk of poverty or social exclusion. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Children_at_risk_of_poverty_or_social_exclusion

13.

Fangen

(2010) Social exclusion and inclusion of young immigrants: Presentation of an analytical framework. Young 18(2): 133–156.

14.

Feilchenfeld

Dornan

Whitehead

, et al. (2017) Ultrasound in undergraduate medical education: a systematic and critical review. Medical Education 51: 366–378.

15.

Foucault

(1972) The archaeology of knowledge. Tavistock.

16.

Géring

(2021) Mixed methodological discourse analysis. In: Onwuegbuzie

Johnson

(eds) The Routledge Reviewer’s Guide to Mixed Methods Analysis. New York, NY and London, UK: Routledge, 161–173.

17.

Ghuman

P. A. S.

(1997) Assimilation or integration? A study of Asian adolescents. Educational Research 39(1): 23–37.

18.

Goodenow

Grady

(1993) The relationship of school belonging and friends’ values to academic motivation among urban adolescent students. The Journal of Experimental Education 62: 60–71.

19.

Gough

Oliver

Thomas

(2017) An introduction to systematic reviews. Sage.

20.

Gulløy

(2017) Skole + tilhørighet = lokal tilhørighet? In: Bunting

Moshuus

(eds) Skolesamfunnet. Kompetansekrav Og Ungdomsfellesskap. Oslo, Norway: Cappelen Damm Akademisk, 124–153.

21.

Gusenbauer

(2021) The age of abundant scholarly information and its synthesis-a time when ‘just google it’ is no longer enough. Research Synthesis Methods 12(6): 684–691.

22.

Halldén

(2007) Den Moderna Barndomen Och Barns Vardagsliv. Stockholm, Sweden: Carlssons.

23.

Haugan

Frostad

Mjaavatn

(2019) A longitudinal study of factors predicting students’ intentions to leave upper secondary school in Norway. Social Psychology of Education 22(5): 1259–1279.

24.

Hovde

(2019) Complexity in global musical belongings: post-human methodology in analysis of marginalized teenagers in Oslo. Qualitative Inquiry 25(7): 680–689.

25.

Hunt

(1997) How Science Takes Stock: The Story of Meta-Analysis. New York, NY: Russel Sage.

26.

Hyggen

Brattbakk

Borgeraas

(2018) Muligheter Og Hindringer for Barn I Lavinntekstfamilier (NOVA Report 11/18). Oslo, Norway: Norwegian Social Research (NOVA).

27.

Kiang

Fuligni

(2009) Ethnic identity in context: Variations in ethnic exploration and belonging within parent, same‐ethnic peer, and different‐ethnic peer relationships. Journal of Youth Adolescence 38: 732–743.

28.

Killen

Mulvey

Hitti

(2013) Social exclusion in childhood: A developmental intergroup perspective. Child Development 84(3): 772–790.

29.

Korpershoek

Canrinus

Fokkens-Bruinsma

, et al. (2020) The relationships between school belonging and students’ motivational, social-emotional, behavioural, and academic outcomes in secondary education: a meta-analytic review. Research Papers in Education 35(6): 641–680.

30.

Marlowe

Bartley

Collins

(2017) Digital belongings: The intersections of social cohesion, connectivity and digital media. Ethnicities 17(1): 85–102.

31.

Medietilsynet (2020) Barn og medier 2020. In: En Kartlegging Av 9–18-åringers Digitale Medievane. The Norwegian Media Authority. Fredrikstad, Norway: Medietilsynet. Oktober 2020.

32.

Molenaar

Van Praag

(2022) Migrants as ‘vulnerable groups’ in the COVID-19 pandemic: a critical discourse analysis of a taken-for-granted label in academic literature. SSM - Qualitative Research in Health 2(2022): 100076.

33.

Normann

Epland

(2022) Fremdeles 115 000 barn med vedvarende lavinntekt i 2020. Oslo, Norway: Statistics Norway (SSB). 31.3.2022.

34.

Over

(2016) The origins of belonging: social motivation in infants and young children. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 371(1686): 20150072. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2015.0072.

35.

Petticrew

Roberts

(2006) Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

36.

Portes

(1995) Children of immigrants: segmented assimilation and its determinants. In: Portes

(ed) The Economic Sociology of Immigration: Essays on Networks, Ethnicity, and Entrepreneurship. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 248–279.

37.

Portes

Rumbaut

(2001) Legacies: The Story of the Immigrant Second Generation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

38.

Raabe

Beelmann

(2011) Development of ethnic, racial, and national prejudice in childhood and adolescence: A multinational meta‐analysis of age differences. Child Development 82(6): 1715–1737.

39.

Ree

Alvestad

Johansson

(2019) Hallmarks of participation–children’s conceptions of how to get access to communities in Norwegian early childhood education and care (ECEC). International Journal of Early Years Education 27(2): 200–215.

40.

Rouleau

Hong

Kaur

, et al. (2023) Systematic reviews of systematic quantitative, qualitative, and mixed studies reviews in healthcare research: how to assess the methodological quality of included reviews? Journal of Mixed Methods Research 17(1): 51–69.

41.

Rysst

(2014) Det koster å være kul. Om tweenagers opplevelse av tilhørighet i en flerkulturell setting i Oslo. Tidsskrift for Ungdomsforskning 5(2): 5–25.

42.

Sandelowski

Barros

(2007) Handbook for Synthesizing Qualitative Research. New York, NY: Springer.

43.

Seeland

Dübendorfer

Hansmann

(2009) Making friends in Zurich’s urban forests and parks: the role of public green space for social inclusion of youths from different cultures. Forest Policy and Economics 11: 10–17.

44.

Seim

Slettebø

(2017) Challenges of participation in child welfare. European Journal of Social Work 20(6): 882–893.

45.

Slaten

Ferguson

Allen

, et al. (2016) School belonging: a review of the history, current trends, and future directions. Education and Developmental Psychologist 33(1): 1–15.

46.

Sutton

Clowes

Preston

, et al. (2019) Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Information and Libraries Journal 36: 202–222.

47.

Tamássy

Géring

(2022) Rich variety of DA approaches applied in social media research: a systematic scoping review. Discourse & Communication 16(1): 93–109.

48.

Thulin

Jonsson

(2014) Child perspectives and children’s perspectives – a concern for teachers in preschool. Educare 2: 13–37.

49.

Wall

Buche

(2017) To fear or not to fear? A critical review and analysis of fear appeals in the information security context. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 41: 277–300.

50.

Wall

Stahl

Salam

(2015) Critical discourse analysis as a review methodology. An empirical example. Communications of the Association for Information Systems 37(11): 258–285.

51.

Xiao

(2021) A bibliometric analysis of critical discourse analysis and its implications. Discourse & Society 32(4): 482–502.

52.

Younis

(2010) På lag? - minoritetsjenter som ikke deltar i organiserte fritidsaktiviteter. Norsk Pedagogisk Tidskrift 94(2): 136–147.