Humanizing Research Practices with Children: Methodological Efforts and Critical Perspectives
Humanizing research practices in the
everyday lives of children
A workshop on methodological efforts to
humanize research.
The main question:
Why and how do we, in our research, think of
and work with ’humanizing processes’ and
’dialogue’?
3 Ph.D.-projects
•
Tilde Mardahl-Hansen
’Teacher professionalism and inclusion in
school’.
•
Kurt Bendix-Olsen
‘Small children’s perspectives on inclusive
practice’
•
Crisstina Munck
•
‘Young children’s communities in an
ambiguous day care practice’
1 common interest
To do qualitative research with and about children that
are based on the theoretical background of critical
psychology (Holzkamp; Dreier; Højholt; Schraube &
Osterkamp)
1)
Critical approach to mainstream psychology;
From abstract and universel being to concrete being
2)
Psychology from the standpoint of the subject;
Children are understood as subjects in their own life
and therefore we do not only do research on children
but with children
A critical standpoint
Critical stance towards the psychological
tradition of diagnosing and categorizing children
in order to understand problems in the world.
Children with difficulties or children in
difficulties?
.
Concept of knowledge
Knowledge about psychological aspects as they
unfold in social practice; to study the relationship
between personal reasons and social conditions
(Højholt s. 4)
1) Knowledge is distributed
2) Valid knowledge is unevenly distributed
3) As researchers we are also part of what we
investigate
Our research position
•
Participating in the social practice. Taking part
and changing social practices. (”Bias” – no
other way – knowlegde is embedded)
•
Intersubjectivity, sensing situations, situated
ethics is called for.
•
Co-research.
•
Transparent research position.
Why engage in dialogue with children?
•
Rejecting a privileged and ‘neutral’ (top
down) focus on the ‘detached’, abstracted,
universal individual, isolated psychological
functions and isolated places
•
‘Dialogue’ understood as
situated social
interplay
in a wide sense
•
Children as subjects in their own lives –
children’s
personal
perspectives in focus –
engagements, intentions, directionality,
participation
Development as dialectical
•
Children’s development is related to the concrete
life they lead, their engagements and their
conditions for taking part are important
processes to study from a variety of places and
positions
•
A social self-understanding grows out of our
conduct of life. The subject has personal reasons
for living his/her life in this particular way. Self-
understanding and the conduct of life to be seen
as a dialectic relationship
‘Participation’ an analytical concept to
investigate social practice with -a
definition (Højholt 2001)
•
”The concept of participation requires a
subject (one who is participating), others (the
subject is part of something where other
subjects are participating), a cause (something
to take part in – the subject is participating in
relation to something).
•
Participation is an individual action connected
to others and directed at someting.” (Højholt,
2001: 58 (our translation))
Participant observation in social
practice
•
Studying social contexts
and
subjects as
intertwining, consitutive and inseparable
•
Studying ‘doing’ and ‘participation’ situated and
as ‘social practices connected to historical
arrangements’ i.e. institutions, day care
•
Following different perspectives, i.e. several
individual trajectories as they unfold in time and
place as a way to gain insight into how subjects
develop agency and take part in the social
practice of becoming persons
Doing participant observation, a closer
look
•
When observing and taking part in a given situation
we
can ask ourselves and look from the children on to
:
How
is it to be part of this arrangement?
•
As participation is both personal and social –
What can I do
here? What are my possibilities here?
•
As participation is ongoing, processual and shifting (often
conflictual) –
How can I connect, keep up, coordinate,
develop and have a say on my interests interlinked with
others across time and contexts?
•
As participation is potentially mediating social constraints
and social structures –
How are problems emerging and
manifesting themselves in social practice? And how do
they change, dissapear or dissolve in certain kinds of social
cooperation?
‘The ambigous child communities in day
care – how small children take part in
social interplay?’
A Ph.d. Research project
•
To
explore the children’s meaning-making
and
what seems to matter to the children
in their
institutional lives.
•
44 Participant observations in two public day
cares. Following to small groups of children,
approximately 12 children aged between 6
month and 2.10 years and 3 professionals.
To explore children’s perspectives
•
‘Children’s perspectives must be explored in
relation to their conditions for taking part
different places.’
(Højholt, 205, 2012)
•
Following the children around can be unfolded as
‘(…) walking alongside the children, paying
attention to what happens on the way, being
led by the children’s activities and engagements
– what seems to matter to them.’
(Kousholt, 250, 2015)
Lunch as a contradictory social practice
•
Practice are many-sided and are intertwined by
contradictory understandings of the children and
their development.
•
The children are directed at taking part in social
interplay with each other and at the same time
they are directed at taking part in what the
pedagogues are arranging.
•
The children take part in lunch by
negotiating
and
challenging
how they can engage in social
interplay.
‘What matter to the children – while eating
lunch?’ (P = pedagogue)
•
The children are eating soup at lunch. I am sitting with Betty (P) and
Anne (P). Sally and Noah are sitting next to each other. They are
looking at each other, smiling. ‘Peek a Booh’, says Sally and hides her
face in her hands. Then she looks up at me and says very quietly
’Peek a Booh’ and smiles. I respond with a ‘Booh’ and smiles back to
Sally. Noah looks at Sally and hides his face in his hands. Then he
looks up and says loudly ’Booh’. Noah has poured some water on the
table and he try to scrape the water up with a spoon. One of the
pedagogues says to Noah,
‘you have to behave properly when we are
eating lunch and you should not pour water on the table’
. Then Sally
looks at Noah and says
’stop’
while she hold her hand up in front of
Noah – showing that she knows how to behave properly. Betty (P)
says to Sally,
’I have control over the situation’
, while she puts her
hand on Sally’s arm. Once more, Noah is told, to stop pouring water
on the table. Noah looks at Anne (P), smiles and continues to scrapes
water from the table. Sally looks at Noah and tries to help scrape the
water off the table, while she smiles at Noah. Noah smiles back at
Sally.
The children are ‘arranging the
arrangements’
•
Sally and Noah are
adapting to
and
changing
‘how to eat lunch’
at the same time, through
their interplay.
•
There seems to be different agendas and still,
the children and the pedagogues share a
social practice – have a common interest.
•
The children’s and the pedagogue’s agendas
are intertwined and mutually constitutive.
Nursery life as a myriad of activities
•
The children are often engaged in different
activities at the same time.
•
Children’s activities change and develop in
new directions all the time.
•
Children’s activities must be seen as
connected to the structures and pedagogical
arrangements during the day.
Expectations to children’s behavior
•
The pedagogues statement to Noah,
‘you
have to behave properly when we are eating
lunch and you should not pour water on the
table’
•
An instrumental statement -showing a
perception of, ‘we (the pedagogues)
all
agree
on how children should behave during lunch’.
•
Connected to a normativity regarding
children’s upbringing.
An ‘inclusive’ lunch?
•
The pedagogues have a pedagogical responsibility
to make sure that
all
the children take part in the
child community around the table.
•
There must be room for everyone and not just
someone
.
•
The pedagogue’s statement
‘I am in control over
situation’
can, from this point of view, be
interpreted as a way of ensuring an
inclusive
lunch
, where everybody can join and take part
equally
.
Sidste slide er til fælles dialog
•
(den kan jeg evt introducere?)
References
•
Dreier, O. (2008): Psychotheraphy in Everyday Life. Cambridge
University Press.
•
Højholt, C. (2001): Udvikling gennem deltagelse. In: Højholt, C. &
Witt, G./ed.: Skolelivets socialpsykologi. Nyere Socialpsykologiske
perspektiver, Unge pædagoger, København.
•
Højholt, C. (2005): Præsentation af praksisforskning. In: Højholt,
C./ed.: Forældresamarbejde. Forskning i fællesskab. Dansk
Psykologisk Forlag.
•
Højholt, C. & Kousholt, D. (2011): Forskningssamarbejde og
gensidige læreprocesser. In: Højholt, C./ed.: Børn i vanskeligheder.
Samarbejde på tværs. Dansk Psykologisk Forlag.
•
Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (2003): Situeret læring og andre tekster. Hans
Reitzels Forlag, København
In this workshop we would like to present and discuss with you methodological issues concerning research on and with children.
We work as researchers and in that way we position ourselves in a particular field of interest that may be different from some of you – and some of the other people participating in this conference that forexample position them selves as terapists, consultatnts, practicineres or othervice. Why is that important you may ask? On one note it is important because we, as researches, take a certain interest in and responsibility towards knowledge-creation and to contribute to theoretical development. In this workshop we will therefore focus on how we think dialogical practices with children (as we will focus on here) – as crucial for knowledge creation and theoretical development and how we give meaning to an ideal of ’dialog’ and ’humanizing practice’ in research
• Ditte Shapiro was unfortunately prevented from attending the conference.
We will each do short presentations and afterwards we will ask you to initiate dialog with us about why we (as in all of us) aim to go into dialog with children, because we think that is important to combine questions about how to inititoe diagical practices with children with questions about our reasons to do it.
Vi har en antagelse om at der kan være ret forskellige grunde til at highlighte, legitimize and make meaning of dialog between grown-ups and children?
But first a little bit about how and why we engage in dialog with children as part of researchprocesses. As you will learn this is forexample not about interviewing children but to follow children in their every day life across time, activities and places.
Tilde: First I will shortly introduce our theoretical point of departure, and with a focus on how this theoretical departure implies an understanding of children as active agents with intentions and engagements in their everyday lives. So I will talk most about Why we, in our research, think of and work with ’humanizing processes’ and ’dialog’?
Kurt: Will talk more about how we, in our research, think of and work with ’humanizing processes’ and ’dialog’?
Crisstina: empirical example on how she works with dialogical practices with – and as we will unfold further – around children in their everyday life.
Workshop focusing on humanizing research methods with children, emphasizing critical psychology theories and engaging children as active participants in research. The approach challenges traditional psychological norms, promoting dialogue and understanding children as subjects in their own lives.
Download Presentation
Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.
The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.
E N D
Presentation Transcript
Humanizing research practices in the everyday lives of children A workshop on methodological efforts to humanize research. The main question: Why and how do we, in our research, think of and work with humanizing processes and dialogue ?
3 Ph.D.-projects Tilde Mardahl-Hansen Teacher professionalism and inclusion in school . Kurt Bendix-Olsen Small children s perspectives on inclusive practice Crisstina Munck Young children s communities in an ambiguous day care practice
1 common interest To do qualitative research with and about children that are based on the theoretical background of critical psychology (Holzkamp; Dreier; H jholt; Schraube & Osterkamp) 1) Critical approach to mainstream psychology; From abstract and universel being to concrete being 2) Psychology from the standpoint of the subject; Children are understood as subjects in their own life and therefore we do not only do research on children but with children
A critical standpoint Critical stance towards the psychological tradition of diagnosing and categorizing children in order to understand problems in the world. Children with difficulties or children in difficulties? .
Concept of knowledge Knowledge about psychological aspects as they unfold in social practice; to study the relationship between personal reasons and social conditions (H jholt s. 4) 1) Knowledge is distributed 2) Valid knowledge is unevenly distributed 3) As researchers we are also part of what we investigate
Our research position Participating in the social practice. Taking part and changing social practices. ( Bias no other way knowlegde is embedded) Intersubjectivity, sensing situations, situated ethics is called for. Co-research. Transparent research position.
Why engage in dialogue with children? Rejecting a privileged and neutral (top down) focus on the detached , abstracted, universal individual, isolated psychological functions and isolated places Dialogue understood as situated social interplay in a wide sense Children as subjects in their own lives children s personal perspectives in focus engagements, intentions, directionality, participation
Development as dialectical Children s development is related to the concrete life they lead, their engagements and their conditions for taking part are important processes to study from a variety of places and positions A social self-understanding grows out of our conduct of life. The subject has personal reasons for living his/her life in this particular way. Self- understanding and the conduct of life to be seen as a dialectic relationship
Participation an analytical concept to investigate social practice with -a definition (H jholt 2001) The concept of participation requires a subject (one who is participating), others (the subject is part of something where other subjects are participating), a cause (something to take part in the subject is participating in relation to something). Participation is an individual action connected to others and directed at someting. (H jholt, 2001: 58 (our translation))
Participant observation in social practice Studying social contexts and subjects as intertwining, consitutive and inseparable Studying doing and participation situated and as social practices connected to historical arrangements i.e. institutions, day care Following different perspectives, i.e. several individual trajectories as they unfold in time and place as a way to gain insight into how subjects develop agency and take part in the social practice of becoming persons
Doing participant observation, a closer look When observing and taking part in a given situation we can ask ourselves and look from the children on to: How is it to be part of this arrangement? As participation is both personal and social What can I do here? What are my possibilities here? As participation is ongoing, processual and shifting (often conflictual) How can I connect, keep up, coordinate, develop and have a say on my interests interlinked with others across time and contexts? As participation is potentially mediating social constraints and social structures How are problems emerging and manifesting themselves in social practice? And how do they change, dissapear or dissolve in certain kinds of social cooperation?
The ambigous child communities in day care how small children take part in social interplay?
A Ph.d. Research project To explore the children s meaning-making and what seems to matter to the children in their institutional lives. 44 Participant observations in two public day cares. Following to small groups of children, approximately 12 children aged between 6 month and 2.10 years and 3 professionals.
To explore childrens perspectives Children s perspectives must be explored in relation to their conditions for taking part different places. (H jholt, 205, 2012) Following the children around can be unfolded as ( ) walking alongside the children, paying attention to what happens on the way, being led by the children s activities and engagements what seems to matter to them. (Kousholt, 250, 2015)
Lunch as a contradictory social practice Practice are many-sided and are intertwined by contradictory understandings of the children and their development. The children are directed at taking part in social interplay with each other and at the same time they are directed at taking part in what the pedagogues are arranging. The children take part in lunch by negotiating and challenging how they can engage in social interplay.
What matter to the children while eating lunch? (P = pedagogue) The children are eating soup at lunch. I am sitting with Betty (P) and Anne (P). Sally and Noah are sitting next to each other. They are looking at each other, smiling. Peek a Booh , says Sally and hides her face in her hands. Then she looks up at me and says very quietly Peek a Booh and smiles. I respond with a Booh and smiles back to Sally. Noah looks at Sally and hides his face in his hands. Then he looks up and says loudly Booh . Noah has poured some water on the table and he try to scrape the water up with a spoon. One of the pedagogues says to Noah, you have to behave properly when we are eating lunch and you should not pour water on the table . Then Sally looks at Noah and says stop while she hold her hand up in front of Noah showing that she knows how to behave properly. Betty (P) says to Sally, I have control over the situation , while she puts her hand on Sally s arm. Once more, Noah is told, to stop pouring water on the table. Noah looks at Anne (P), smiles and continues to scrapes water from the table. Sally looks at Noah and tries to help scrape the water off the table, while she smiles at Noah. Noah smiles back at Sally.
The children are arranging the arrangements Sally and Noah are adapting to and changing how to eat lunch at the same time, through their interplay. There seems to be different agendas and still, the children and the pedagogues share a social practice have a common interest. The children s and the pedagogue s agendas are intertwined and mutually constitutive.
Nursery life as a myriad of activities The children are often engaged in different activities at the same time. Children s activities change and develop in new directions all the time. Children s activities must be seen as connected to the structures and pedagogical arrangements during the day.
Expectations to childrens behavior The pedagogues statement to Noah, you have to behave properly when we are eating lunch and you should not pour water on the table An instrumental statement -showing a perception of, we (the pedagogues) all agree on how children should behave during lunch . Connected to a normativity regarding children s upbringing.
An inclusive lunch? The pedagogues have a pedagogical responsibility to make sure that all the children take part in the child community around the table. There must be room for everyone and not just someone. The pedagogue s statement I am in control over situation can, from this point of view, be interpreted as a way of ensuring an inclusive lunch, where everybody can join and take part equally.
Sidste slide er til flles dialog (den kan jeg evt introducere?)
References Dreier, O. (2008): Psychotheraphy in Everyday Life. Cambridge University Press. H jholt, C. (2001): Udvikling gennem deltagelse. In: H jholt, C. & Witt, G./ed.: Skolelivets socialpsykologi. Nyere Socialpsykologiske perspektiver, Unge p dagoger, K benhavn. H jholt, C. (2005): Pr sentation af praksisforskning. In: H jholt, C./ed.: For ldresamarbejde. Forskning i f llesskab. Dansk Psykologisk Forlag. H jholt, C. & Kousholt, D. (2011): Forskningssamarbejde og gensidige l reprocesser. In: H jholt, C./ed.: B rn i vanskeligheder. Samarbejde p tv rs. Dansk Psykologisk Forlag. Lave, J. & Wenger, E. (2003): Situeret l ring og andre tekster. Hans Reitzels Forlag, K benhavn
