‘You Can't Have Well‐being If You're Dead…or Can You?’ Children's Realistic and Logical Approach to Discussing Life, Death and Wellbeing

Abstract

Well‐being is a popularised and regularly considered aspect of an individual's life. Whilst frequently theorised across disciplines interested in childhood, children's perspectives on well‐being are often missing. This article presents children's views on well‐being, focussing on the extent they consider well‐being to exist after death or near‐death experiences. Through focus‐group discussion, children's conversations reflect their ability for deep philosophical, abstract thinking and contributing to clearer understandings of well‐being across different contexts. Children's pragmatic responses about death when considering well‐being provide a valuable contribution to understanding fear of death whilst arguing for collaborative approaches between adults and children when considering complex issues.

Is Death Taboo for Children? Developing Death Ambivalence as a Theoretical Framework to Understand Children’s Relationship with Death, Dying and Bereavement

“…This paper draws on qualitative data from a PhD study that used action research to advance education and support around death and bereavement between a Scottish Hospice and two schools (Paul, ). The foundation of this participatory methodology was recognising the rights and agency of children, whereby children are viewed as capable informants on matters relating to the world in which they live (Gillet‐Swan, ; Oswell, ). The study was conducted by the author who, at the time of the research, was a palliative care social worker working in, and funded by, the Hospice participating in the research.…”

Autonomy, Fairness and Active Relationships: Children's Experiences of Well‐being in Childcare

“…Furthermore, as Gillett‐Swan () asserts, children can also engage in critical and complex discussion about the meaning of well‐being. For example, they understand well‐being in ways that extended beyond their own immediate pleasures (Gillett‐Swan, ).…”

“…Some specific areas of focus within the former literature are the effects of ECEC on children's socioemotional, cognitive and language skills (Vandell and others, ), and the relationship between childcare quality and children's biological markers of stress (Watamura and others, ). Once again, the latter approach includes studies that sought to describe children's experiences (Estola and others, ; Fattore and others, ; Gillett‐Swan, , ), and children's evaluations of their well‐being in care (Sandseter and Seland, ). These studies either conceptualise child well‐being as happiness or take an open‐ended approach to conceptualising well‐being that extends beyond the theme of happiness.…”

“…The second approach involves taking a more open‐ended approach to the definition of child well‐being during the data collection phase, thereby allowing a broader range of well‐being‐related themes to emerge. For example, Fattore and others’ () study with Australian children aged eight to 15, Gillett‐Swan's (, ) studies with Australian children aged eight to 12, and Estola and others’ () study with Finnish and New Zealander children aged one to five, all took an open‐ended approach to well‐being during the data collection. However, in the presentation of findings, these studies draw on well‐being definitions that include both hedonic and eudaimonic dimensions.…”

“…Returning to our focus on children, Fattore and others () find that children can experience eudaimonic well‐being connected to self‐realisation. Furthermore, as Gillett‐Swan () asserts, children can also engage in critical and complex discussion about the meaning of well‐being. For example, they understand well‐being in ways that extended beyond their own immediate pleasures (Gillett‐Swan, ).…”