#classthree

Week 3 Overarching Question

January 18, 2017

~Article 3: “‘You could just ignore me’: Situating peer exclusion within the contingencies of girls’ everyday interactional practices” By Svahn and Evaldsson (2011)

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

-The processes of social exclusion for pre-adolescent girls, created with covert, subtle interpersonal behaviours is indirect bullying. Individuals use this practice to “reconstruct” their peer groups and organize the social hierarchy within the group, typically resulting in someone being excluded. This kind of relational aggression is prevalent in the everyday lives of adolescents, all of whom are seeking group acceptance. Ethnographical methodologies are used to work with children’s peer groups to examine their practices and interactions. This study focuses on pre-adolescent girls.

2. What are the major organizing ideas?

-Social exclusion, relational aggression and manipulation are more common among young girls rather than physical harm. The organization of social exclusion, peer alignments and social hierarchies shows that the girls rely on a variety of embodied practices that have subtle meanings in the girls’ everyday lives. Ethnographic research, along with documenting conversations paired with  body positioning sketches, displays the situational findings for the peer group. 

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

-Relational aggression can appear as : ignoring, disqualifying, insulting, blaming, and creating new rules that effectually exclude others. Often times, victims of this kind of aggression are described to “bring it on themselves”. The nature of how this kind of bullying happens within social peer groups is important, but the behaviour that underpins these actions, where do they come from? Are these examples of social hierarchy within peer groups reflective of familial hierarchies that these children are familiar with? The behaviour examples collected in the research show that girls are “tearing [each other] down” in order for someone else to gain a higher status within the group. Can we intervene this kind of behaviour to support uplifting positive traits?

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

-This study focuses on the pre-adolescent female population. This study of peer relations and social inclusion should be considered from an earlier age, and focus equally on both sexes, in early childhood contexts. Perhaps, from Pre-school contexts to Grade 2. The author states that this kind of social organization occurs naturally in peer group interactions, it would be useful to know when this type of behaviour begins to emerge; around what age to children begin to develop peer groups and how do they refine them. The sample population is Swedish, it is acknowledged that differences between cultures like fictional characters and nicknames could be influenced by ethnic background. Multiple cultural populations should be considered in future research.

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

-This article presented a new lens for me to consider peer interactions between youth and the nature of their practices. The study demonstrated that youth are “proficien[t] in aligning and disaligning” with their peers’ actions to “establish different forms of [group] participation” and build exclusive social circles. (505) “Peer exclusion is deeply embedded in ordinary and everyday interactional peer group practices, making it very difficult to discern for an outsider” (506). The findings in this article raise more questions for me as a child and youth care practitioner, as to how this behaviour develops in children. Children may see this kind of interaction in their peer group as “normal” or acceptable because their peers participate. How do we intervene this kind of behaviour; can we?

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

January 18, 2017

~Article 2: “Researching Children and Fashion: An embodied ethnography” By Pole (2007)

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

-Research studies focused on children and their bodies, like fashion, can make the research process due to the current concerns about abuse and children’s rights. 

2. What are the major organizing ideas?

-Processes of collecting data are not ethically acceptable for children to respect their rights and ensure their safety. Methods need to elicit “good, rich and reliable data”. What kind of research approach is key to the collection of data about children and their relationship with fashion?

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

-How do children’s clothing choices inform adult’s understandings of children’s identities? Being mindful that certain socioeconomic restraints may limit a child’s choice in clothing options, in these particular situations, are the choice they make to assert their identity connected to their expression of self through appearance? Is it up to adults to understand the “how” and “why” of children’s expression of self, or should adults be providing children with the opportunities to discuss it or create a space where the children are comfortable to openly disclose their feelings about themselves?

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

“The centrality of the ethnographer to the process of ethnographic research, in particular the relationship between researcher and researched is key to the collection of ‘good’, rich and reliable data.” -The author states that the relationship between the researcher and the participants of the study is important. Considering this point, the author is a middle-aged male seeking to reach children’s relationship with fashion and their feelings about their bodies, including young females. This may be a caveat as the relationship between young children and an older man may not be easily established as it could be with a younger researcher. Pairing a same-sex researchers to research participants may aid in eliciting “rich” data.

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

-This article presented the reflexivity of child research and it’s importance in child-centred methodologies. The relationship between the researchers and the children should be bi-directional and circular; each member in the research should be connecting with themselves. Researchers should ensure their transparency about the research focus and process. The experience of researching and being a part of your own research allows the children access to the entire experience. 

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

-The research suggested that research methods used to gain information about children’s feelings about themselves can be sensitive. A male researcher collecting data from children, some young girls, may impose issues with the collection of research data. Embodied transparency is key to facilitating the reflexive relationship between child research participants and researchers, ensuring that all children’s identities can pair with similar researchers to support the comfortable connection to disclose personal thoughts and feelings regarding a child’s identity. 

January 18, 2017

~ Article 1: “Shifting research methods with a becoming-child ontology: Co-theorising puppet production with high school students” By Mayes (2016)

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

-The ontological status of a child or youth could be understood with a ethnography methodology of collaborative puppet production exploration and play situations. Children can express themselves differently about “the nature of being a child” and “existing in the world” through their experience of puppet production.

2. What are the major organizing ideas?

-Ethnographic research methods to study students’ conceptual understanding of self and becoming. Puppet production serves as a way to engage youth in their abilities to theorize and construct alongside the researchers. Researchers can re-configuring knowledge so it’s co-constituted with their young participant researchers. 

Process of theorizing puppet production knowledge —producing knowledge yourselves, guided and scaffolded by the researcher -analyzing and critiquing -> creating knowledge together

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

-Can puppet production be accessible for all children and youth, and in what contexts would puppets be an appropriate intervention tool? Using a puppet to support a child who wishes to speak comfortably with others is an obvious benefit. What kinds of benefits to puppets have for older children?

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

-The study’s title states that their research is conducted with high school students, the data states participants are in “Year 8 to 11″. This window does not include the students ages, and it seems odd to exclude Grade 12 students. Particulars about the population sample would be helpful.

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

-This article asserts that puppets can serve as a research method to gather data about youths’ experiences of becoming as a child and facilitates the collaborative voice of students. Students work together and individually to “interpret” each others “utterances”, as well as those of their teachers and other adults (118). Providing students with opportunities to express their voices with the interaction with puppets and peers can be provide insight into their lived experiences of childhood.

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