You are here: Home Аrchive of articles 2025 №1 List of Article 06. Goshin М. Е., Sorokin P. S., Kupriyanov B. V. Agency Manifestations in Schoolchildren and Their Involvement in Participatory Budgeting (In Russ.)

PDF To download article. 

DOI: 10.15507/1991-9468.029.202501.097-113

UDC 371:159.923-027.521

 

Agency Manifestations in Schoolchildren and Their Involvement in Participatory Budgeting

Mikhail E. Goshin
Cand.Sci. (Chem.), Researcher of the Laboratory for Human Capital and Education Research of the Centre for Vocational Education and Skills Development, Institute of Education, HSE University (11 Pokrovskiy Bulvar, Moscow 101000, Russian Federation), ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7251-3938, Scopus ID: 12445570100, SPIN-code: 6817-7375, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Pavel S. Sorokin
Cand.Sci. (Sociol.), Head of the Laboratory for Human Capital and Education Research, Leading Researcher of the Centre for Vocational Education and Skills Development, Institute of Education, HSE University (11 Pokrovskiy Bulvar, Moscow 101000, Russian Federation), ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3910-2090, Scopus ID: 56509164400, SPIN-code: 4320-9971, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Boris V. Kupriyanov
Dr.Sci. (Ped.), Leading Researcher of the Center for Participatory budgeting, Financial Research Institute of the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation (3 bld. 2 Nastasinskiy Pereulok, Moscow 127006, Russian Federation), Professor of the Chair of Pedagogy, Moscow City University (4 2 Selskokhozyaystvennyy Proezd, Moscow 129226, Russian Federation), ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1041-6056, Scopus ID: 57131078100, SPIN-code: 8154-6769, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Abstract
Introduction. Education plays a key role in shaping the younger generation’s agency, i.e. their proactive attitude and ability to constructively transform social reality. In this context, it is important to understand how involving schoolchildren in decision-making processes, such as school participatory budgeting, can contribute to the development of their personal responsibility and initiative. However, these practices have not been practically investigated in the context of students’ agency, and there is a lack of empirical evidence on how these initiatives can solve real problems and improve the school community. The aim of the study is to investigate the agency of schoolchildren involved in school participatory budgeting, with an emphasis on identifying the motives and effects of this activity.
Materials and Methods. The empirical base includes the results of a survey of 670 schoolchildren in grades 7–11 enrolled in schools with significant experience in participatory budgeting, which was conducted from May to October 2023 in 32 regions of the Russian Federation. The questionnaire contained questions about specific practices of students’ participation in the development of the educational organization’s infrastructure, in holding events, competitions, the degree of involvement in school participatory budgeting, motives and results of this activity. The level of agency was determined using a specially developed methodology to assess its manifestations in various spheres: family, learning process, school life, interaction with peers, finances.
Results. The main motives for taking part in school participatory budgeting are personal development, acquisition of new competencies, knowledge and social mobility. The higher the level of agency, the higher the degree of involvement in budgeting. However, a high level of agency and the maximum degree of involvement are typical only for a small percentage of respondents. Participants in school participatory budgeting with the highest level of agency often seek changes to existing practices and regulations, as well as the implementation of socially significant projects aimed at improving the life of the school community.
Discussion and Conclusion. The level of schoolchildren’s agency is closely related to their involvement in participatory budgeting. With the most frequent mentioning by respondents of individually significant motives and results, participants of participatory budgeting with the highest level of agency are characterized by a combination of individualistic and altruistic motives and effects of this activity. This study provides educators engaged in school participatory budgeting with target benchmarks for analyzing educational outcomes, helps school leaders to more accurately define the school development strategy and determine directions for changing the corporate culture of interaction between children and adults in the educational environment. It also opens prospects for future research on the relationship between agency, participation in initiatives, and civic identity formation, which will be of interest to sociologists and psychologists analyzing youth behavior and social activity.

Keywords: agency of schoolchildren, school participatory budgeting, agency level, motivation, results of participatory budgeting

Funding: The research was supported by the Russian Science Fondation No. 23-78-10182.

Acknowledgments: The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their comments and suggestions that improved the quality of the article.

Conflict of interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

For citation: Goshin М.Е., Sorokin P.S., Kupriyanov B.V. Agency Manifestations in Schoolchildren and Their Involvement in Participatory Budgeting. Integration of Education. 2025;29(1):97–113. https://doi.org/10.15507/1991-9468.029.202501.097-113

Author’s contribution:
M. E. Goshin – formulation of overarching research goals and aims; management activities to produce metadata for initial use and later re-use; application of statistical techniques to analyze study data; conducting a research and investigation process, specifically data collection; specifically visualization; writing the initial draft.
P. S. Sorokin – management activities to produce metadata for initial use and later re-use; development of methodology; conducting a research and investigation process, specifically data collection; specifically visualization; critical review.
B. V. Kupriyanov – management activities to produce metadata for initial use and later re-use; development of methodology; conducting a research and investigation process, specifically data collection; specifically visualization.

Availability of data and materials. The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the authors on reasonable request.

All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Submitted 01.08.2024;
revised 30.09.2024;
accepted 07.10.2024.

 

REFERENCES

  1. Cavazzoni F., Fiorini A., Veronese G. How Do We Assess How Agentic We Are? A Literature Review of Existing Instruments to Evaluate and Measure Individuals’ Agency. Social Indicators Research. 2022;59:1125–1153. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-021-02791-8
  2. Emirbayer M., Mische A. What Is Agency? American Journal of Sociology. 1998;103(4):962–1023. https://doi.org/10.1086/231294
  3. Cook-Sather A. Student Voice across Contexts: Fostering Student Agency in Today’s Schools. Theory into Practice. 2020;59(2):182–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2019.1705091
  4. Bartlett T., Schugurensky D. Reinventing Freire in the 21st Century: Citizenship Education, Student Voice and School Participatory Budgeting. Current Issues in Comparative Education. 2021;23(2):55–79. https://doi.org/10.52214/cice.v23i2.8571
  5. Bartlett Т., Schugurensky D. Inclusive Civic Education and School Democracy through Participatory Budgeting. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice. 2023;19(3):362–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/17461979231160701
  6. Gibbs N.P., Bartlett T., Schugurensky D. Does School Participatory Budgeting Increase Students’ Political Efficacy? Bandura’s ‘Sources’, Civic Pedagogy, and Education for Democracy. Curriculum and Teaching. 2021;36(1):5–27. https://doi.org/10.7459/ct/36.1.02
  7. Pardo-Beneyto G., Abellán-López M. Participatory Budgeting for Young People as Democratic Socialisation: An Approach to the Case of Spain. Children and Society. 2023;37(5):1555–1575. https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12690
  8. Novella Cámara A.M., Crespo i Torres F., Pose Porto H. Meetings between Professionals for the Inclusion of Children in Citizen Participation: A Formative Experience. Social Inclusion. 2022;10(2):19–31. https://doi.org/10.17645/si.v10i2.5018
  9. da Mota M.V.G., dos Santos Silva R. Humanistic Education and Participatory Budget – Possible Application in Mirandela and Bragança Teaching Units. Research, Society and Development. 2021;10(4):e8310413811. https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v10i4.13811
  10. Esteban M.B., Novella A., Martínez M. Principle of Progressive Autonomy, Participation, and Recognition of Agency. Substantive Citizenship in the Transition from Childhood to Adolescence. Foro de Educación. 2022;20(1):134–157. Available at: https://forodeeducacion.com/ojs/index.php/fde/article/view/36 (accessed 25.09.2024).
  11. Lehtonen P., Radzik-Maruszak K. Inclusion as Ownership in Participatory Budgeting: Facilitators’ Interpretations of Public Engagement of Children and Youth. Critical Policy Studies. 2024;18(1):73–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2023.2192412
  12. Karpova E.M., Vagin V.V., Kupriyanov B.V. Cultural Transfer of School Participatory Budgeting and the Soviet Tradition of Education. Science for Education Today. 2023;13(6):209–232. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) http://dx.doi.org/10.15293/2658-6762.2306.10
  13. Bandura A. Toward a Psychology of Human Agency: Pathways and Reflections. Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2018;13(2):130–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617699280
  14. Sorokin P.S. The Problem of “Agency” Through the Prism of a New Reality: Conditions and Perspectives. Sociological Studies. 2023;(3):103–114. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) https://doi.org/10.31857/S013216250022927-2
  15. Dobryakova M.S., Yurchenko O.V. Agency and Autonomy as a Learning Outcome: Distinguishing Notions. Sociological Studies. 2023;(11):80–92. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) https://doi.org/10.31857/S013216250028534-0
  16. Manyukhina Y. Children’s Agency in the National Curriculum for England: A Critical Discourse Analysis. Education 3-13. 2022;50(4):506–520. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2022.2052232
  17. Abebe T. Reconceptualising Children’s Agency as Continuum and Interdependence. Social Sciences. 2019;8(3):81. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci8030081
  18. Veronese G., Pepe A., Cavazzoni F., Obaid H., Perez J. Agency via Life Satisfaction as a Protective Factor from Cumulative Trauma and Emotional Distress among Bedouin Children in Palestine. Frontiers in Psychology. 2019;10:1674. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01674
  19. Fligstein N., McAdam D. Toward a General Theory of Strategic Action Fields. Sociological Theory. 2011;29(1):1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9558.2010.01385.x
  20. Hoggett P. Agency, Rationality and Social Policy. Journal of Social Policy. 2001;30(1):37–56. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279400006152
  21. Sorokin P.S., Froumin I.D. ‘Utility’ of Education and the Role of Transformative Agency: Policy Challenges and Agendas. Policy Futures in Education. 2022;20(2):201–214. https://doi.org/10.1177/14782103211032080
  22. Børhaug B.F., Weyringer S. Developing Critical and Empathic Capabilities in Intercultural Education through the VaKE Approach. Intercultural Education. 2019;30(1):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/14675986.2018.1534042
  23. Cook-Sather A. Sound, Presence, and Power: “Student Voice” in Educational Research and Reform. Curriculum Inquiry. 2006;36(4):359–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-873x.2006.00363.x
  24. Kupriyanov B.V. Diagnostics of School Involvement of Learners Included in the Practice of Participatory Budgeting. Integration of Education. 2023;27(1):119–130. (In Russ., abstract in Eng.) https://doi.org/10.15507/1991-9468.110.027.202301.119-130
  25. Gurdal S., Sorbring E. Children’s Agency in Parent–Child, Teacher–Pupil and Peer Relationship Contexts. International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-being. 2018;13(sup 1):1565239. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482631.2019.1565239
  26. Klemenčič M. From Student Engagement to Student Agency: Conceptual Considerations of European Policies on Student-Centered Learning in Higher Education. Higher Education Policy. 2017;30:69–85. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41307-016-0034-4

 

PlumX

Лицензия Creative Commons
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Details
Hits: 53