#classfour

Week 4 Overarching Question

February 1, 2017

~Article: “Progressing children’s participation: Exploring the potential of dialogical turn” By Graham and Fitzgerald (2010)

1. What are the basic assumptions that inform the reading?

-The authors state that children’s experience of participation, and how children’s participation in social and political life is presented among professionals, their participation is seen as “ambiguous and uncertain”.  The authors assert that the best methods of understanding children’s true participation in everyday life has not yet been found, and suggests the “dialogical approach” as a means of reconstructing the perception of children’s participation and how to elicit children’s experiential accounts of participating. 

2. What are the major organizing ideas?

-The authors outline four main issues; clarifying ambiguity, acknowledging the “complex interplay” between limits and possibilities of participation, moving beyond the tension of participation by reimagining what participation is for children, and the role of dialogue to facilitate the recognition of children’s participation. Great importance is placed on how professionals recognize children’s participation, and what is considered participation now in “contemporary life”. The use of dialogue is critical and is the guiding method of this approach.

3. What serious questions does the reading raise regarding the fields of child and youth study?

-The article raises this question, how do professionals support the voices of children in all situations, or are there situations where children are only then “allowed” to contribute their say? Adults have “trivialized” children’s voices, as adults are deemed the “knowledge holders”. This power dynamic divides the children from the adults and suggests that there is something inherently superior about adults, rendering children “incapable” of moving outside of adults’ guidelines. How do professionals, in practice, provide the space and relationality necessary to facilitate children to feel that their contributions and voices are equally, if not more so, important than adult voices?

4. What serious omissions are left out of the article or reading (if any)?

-The research focused on what children verbally shared about their experiences of participation and asked them about their contributions and how they felt about it. This is useful and valid, but excludes children who use other forms of communication, and does not examine the kinds of “messages” and “information” about the experience in the moment of participating that could be expressed with physically, or perhaps, within the child’s mind. Accessing this information would be difficult, but it is not acknowledged that these are also forms of dialogue. 

5. In what ways does this article reinforce, extend, challenge, or oppose your own views on child and youth study/research/practice?

-The dialogical approach to participation recognizes, respects, and integrates information received through conversation with children to inform their rich understanding of their lives and their surroundings. The article reinforces that children are aware of social and political life and know how to be involved in these choices and conversation in their everyday lives. “Respecting children’s views as equal shareholders” is vital to the deconstruct of the power relations that hold adult voices above children’s.

6. What do you take away from the reading in terms of your own child and youth practice?

February 1, 2017

~Article: “‘The scream’: Meanings and excesses in early childhood settings” By Rosen (2014)

1. What are the basic assumptions that inform the reading?

-Screaming as a form of communication of widely unrecognized in practice with children and youth. Because scholars have neglected the value and meaning of screams, ‘the scream’ is viewed as a negative behaviour, and is frequently ignored or addressed with aggravation, and the scream is urged to cease. Schoolification and expectations of conventional forms of communication are focused on by professionals in the field; reading and writing.  

2. What are the major organizing ideas? -A scream can “embody” multiple different meanings and should not be confined to one kind of emotional expression, as a scream can be a “complex mixture of emotional states” (42). When interpreting the meaning of a scream, the purpose driving the scream and the “voice quality” (45) should be considered. The research also suggests that a scream can create a “space” or “community” which includes or excludes children.

3. What serious questions does the reading raise regarding the fields of child and youth study? -Previous research has suggested that ‘listening’ to children’s voices and involving them in choices and decision making about their own lives supports children’s rights. This concept, however, relies on the rational articulations made by children. This excludes children who experience challenges with socializing, expressing themselves, and with traditional verbal communication. This is pertinent when researching children’s voices, so all childrens’ voices can be more widely understood through research. 

4. What serious omissions are left out of the article or reading (if any)? -No omissions.

5. In what ways does this article reinforce, extend, challenge, or oppose your own views on child and youth study/research/practice? -This article has proposed the complexity of ‘the scream’, and how it is important for professionals working with children to be listening to children’s embodied vocal production to understand the deep meaning behind a child’s scream. The article provides the notion of answerability to consider how different voice qualities can be “heard or listened to”, instructing that it is not the interpretation of the voice that is the most important, but that the voice is “received and responded to” (49, 50).

6. What do you take away from the reading in terms of your own child and youth practice?

February 1st

Meeting notes for Leadership Discussion Presentation 

February 1, 2017

~First Article: “Lollipop stories: Listening to children’s voices in the classroom and narrative ethnographical research” By Hohti and Karlsson (2014)

1. What are the basic assumptions that inform the reading?

-“Children participate in society with their own voices.” Previous research provides evidence that most classrooms are managed in a controlling way rather than in ways that support the autonomy of students. Deeper understanding of children’s voices within the context of research and school is needed. 

2. What are the major organizing ideas?

-Children’s competence is questioned when active listening should take place in the sharing of their voices. Sharing your voice can be through more than words, through different spaces of voice. Narrative ethnography draws out the data to carefully examine children’s voices and distinguishes their complexity.

3. What serious questions does the reading raise regarding the fields of child and youth study?

-Narrative story crafting methods give children an outlet to express themselves and their feelings about a given situation or subject, similar to puppets. Can narrative stories be used to elicit voice from older children? How can reflexive listening skills be useful for individuals in adolescence?

4. What serious omissions are left out of the article or reading (if any)? -No omissions. 

5. In what ways does this article reinforce, extend, challenge, or oppose your own views on child and youth study/research/practice? -The article asserts that children’s voices need to be recognized and can be effectively elicited in narrative story-telling activities involving reciprocation with peers, rather than single narratives and interviews. Adults need to take responsibility in ensuring the child can freely express their voice without constraints. 

6. What do you take away from the reading in terms of your own child and youth practice?