Studying Children in Context: Theories, Methods, and Ethics
Publication Year: 1998
The art and science of doing qualitative research involving children is the subject of this book. Elizabeth Graue and Daniel Walsh discuss the research process, dealing succinctly with generic issues but emphasizing where work with children presents its own particular challenges. Part One looks across the research enterprise, conceptualizing it as an holistic activity. Part Two focuses on fieldwork, and the final part examines the interpretive and reporting aspects of qualitative research.
- Front Matter
- Back Matter
- Subject Index
- Chapter 1: The Child as Object
- The Persistence of Piaget
- Children in Context
- Chapter 2: Interpretive Science
- Chapter 3: Theory as Context
- The Place of Theory
- Theory and Method
- Theory and Children
- Theories in Practice
- Case Study: Some Personal Reflections on the Role of Theory in My Work
- Chapter 4: Ethics: Being Fair
- Case Study: Webs of Trust and Deception
- Chapter 5: Researcher Role as Context
- But First, Do No Harm: What Not to Do in Field Research with Children
- Relationship and Role as a Context
- Interactions between Children's Contexts and Researcher Knowing
- Reciprocity in Work with Children
- Case Study: Our Reflection on a Collaborative Research Experience
- Chapter 6: Generating Data
- Before Entering the Field
- Artifact Gathering
- Bias and Efficiency
- Chapter 7: Constructing a Data Record
- The Data Record
- Constructing a Data Record
- The Importance of the Data Record
- Case Study: Getting into the Peer Social Worlds of Young Children
- The Researcher's Role
- Recording Children's Interactions
- Chapter 8: Interpretation in Context
- What is Interpretation?
- From Descriptions to Explanations
- Notes on Method
- Jared Through Observation
- Jared's Community Context
- Case Study: Making Sense in Children's Worlds: The Meaning of Tina and the Weeping Superheroes
- Basic Definitions and Methodological Decisions
- The Case of the Weeping Superheroes
- Describe K
- Expect Grade 1
- Chapter 9: Writing as Context
- Data Displays
- Case Study: Writing Short Stories
- Air Ferns: The Short Story
- Air Ferns: The Chronicle
- Air Ferns: Official Policies and Policies from Practice
- Chapter 10: Conclusion
- Institutional Constraints
- Market Constraints
Copyright © 1998 by Sage Publications, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
SAGE Publications, Inc.
2455 Teller Road
Thousand Oaks, California 91320
SAGE Publications Ltd.
6 Bonhill Street
London EC2A 4PU
SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd.
Greater Kailash I
New Delhi 110 048 India
Printed in the United States of America
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Graue, M. Elizabeth, 1956–
Studying children in context: Theories, methods, and ethics/ by M. Elizabeth Graue and Daniel J. Walsh with Deborah Ceglowski et al.
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-8039-7256-3 (cloth: acid-free paper).—ISBN 0-8039-7257-1 (pbk.: acid-free paper)
1. Children—Research—Methodology. 2. Children—Research—United States. 3. Context effects (Psychology) in children—Research—United States. I. Walsh, Daniel J. II. Title.
01 02 03 04 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3
Acquiring Editor: Peter Labella
Editorial Assistant: Corrine Pierce
Production Editor: Diana E. Axelsen
Production Assistant: Denise Santoyo
Typesetter: Marion Warren
Indexer: Mary Mortensen
Print Buyer: Anna Chin
Writing this book challenged us in many ways—technically as we dealt with the physical distance between Urbana, Illinois, and Madison, Wisconsin; theoretically as we negotiated differing perspectives on research; and stylistically as we struggled with authorial voice. We met the first challenge with e-mail, phone calls, and 4-hour drives. The other two were more difficult.
We met and talked a number of times while we planned and wrote the book, but we never actually sat down at a keyboard together. When we wrote, we wrote individually. The first draft of each page was written by one of us and then passed on to the other.
Each “we,” then, in this volume began as one of us speaking for both of us and waiting to see if the other agreed. Take this brief preface. We met and talked about how we would present ourselves as authors and came to something of an agreement, but one of us (Daniel) initially translated that agreement into text—the first draft of what you are now reading.
We are very different people, with dissimilar styles of writing, distinct ways of presenting ourselves, and, often, conflicting ideas about what research is and how it should proceed. These differences were an important factor in our decision to write this book together. We saw our different viewpoints, experiences, and writing styles as a strength. We wanted not to present ourselves as a homogeneous magisterial “we.” We [Page x]wanted to keep the tension of our discussions in the writing. We attempted to maintain the tension by forging a style that lay between choral writing and cacophony. Tobin and Davidson (1990) used the term polyvocality. Our goal was a functional bivocality, complex but not so muddled as to hinder communication. The proof of our efforts will be in the reading.
We indicate at the beginning of each chapter who took primary responsibility for writing the chapter. We do so to identify for the reader the underlying “I” in each chapter. A few chapters were passed back and forth so often that they became very much dual efforts, and those also have been noted. At times, we speak in an identified first person singular, for example, “I (Daniel).” At other times, when agreement is strong, as now, we shift to the first person plural. No chapter that either of us wrote escaped the careful attention of the other.
We extended our voices by bringing in valued colleagues to describe their field experiences. These short narratives illuminate key issues in many chapters. Our ambition has been to produce a text that is accessibly and usefully complex. Many thanks to Deb Ceglowski, Anne Haas Dyson, David Fernie, Rebecca Kantor, Robin Lynn Leavitt, Peggy J. Miller, and Hsueh-Yin Ting for adding an important layer of polyvocality.
We are both indebted to many people who helped and guided us in our development as researchers. Without their tutelage, we would not have written this book. We owe its strengths to them. They should not be faulted for its weaknesses nor identified with its idiosyncrasies.
I (Daniel) owe much to George and Louise Spindler, who first introduced me to ethnography, and to many valued colleagues, particularly Buddy Peshkin, Liora Bresler, Peggy Miller, John D'Amato, Norm Denzin, Joe Tobin, and Gary King. I have learned much from afar from the inimitable Ray McDermott and the peerless Fred Erickson. I have also had the opportunity to associate with many gifted graduate students in recent years. Working with them on research and on their dissertations has taught me a great deal. An incomplete list includes Natalie Baturka, Robin Leavitt, Hui-Fen Lin, Hsueh-Yin Ting, J. C. Chen, Deb Ceglowski, Teresa Vasconcelos, Jean Wolf, Yonghee Hong, Patricia Clark Brown, Min-Ling Tsai, Shunah Chung, Anya Enos, Mugyeong Ryu, Kyunghwa Lee, Carol Owles, Judy Davidson, and Jaesook Lee. Thanks also to Randy Bost for help on the references. Finally, I thank the students who have taken my Child Study and Methods of Educational Inquiry courses, [Page xi]in which many of the ideas in this book were first tried out. My work on this book was facilitated by support from the Bureau of Educational Research at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
I (Beth) will always be indebted to Bob Stake, who lured me into the land of qualitative research, and to Margaret Eisenhart and Lorrie Shepard, who through their very different approaches taught me that there were many ways to interpret the world. Thanks also to Mary Lee Smith. Colleagues at Wisconsin have supported and challenged my learning. Special thanks to Mary Louise Gomez, Michael Apple, and Tom Popkewitz. Many grad students have taught me in various courses on interpretive research and have come back for more—thanks to Patti O'-Toole, Matthew Weinstein, Deb Ceglowski, Monica Miller Marsh, Ellen Ansell, and Tamara Lindsey. This work was made possible in part by the support of the Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation's Graduate School Research Grant Program.
We dedicate this book to our colleague and dear friend Mary Catherine Ellwein, who died in June of 1994 at the age of 36, taken much too young and much too alive by cancer. She was a wonderful woman, strong and smart. She was a extraordinary researcher. And she was good to be with.
Beth and Mary Catherine were graduate students together at the University of Colorado. Daniel and Mary Catherine were colleagues at the University of Virginia. We met each other through Mary Catherine. Were she still alive and working with us, this would be a much better book. Much of what we know about research we learned from her, in particular, the need to be respectful of the multiple layers of intention and commitment required to work with children. We had much left to learn from her when she died.
We both miss her very much.[Page xii]
Don't make up what you could find out.—Howard Becker (1996, p. 59)
Some years ago, I heard Lee Shulman assert that the purpose of research is to get smarter about the world in order to make it a better place. It is, as the Irish say, a “grand” statement. I used it to introduce my research methods courses. I used it to justify my own work, perhaps even to feel grand about it—I was getting smarter about the world, and I was making it a better place.
Maybe I have become smarter about the world, at least about some very small corner of it, but it is presumptuous to think that I have made it a better place. James Garbarino's (1995) argument that contemporary America is raising its children in a “socially toxic environment” is compelling, and it is disturbing to parents of young children, as we both are (two each). When I read, for example, this morning in Time that Libya's ruling thug, M. Khadafy, is building an impregnable factory that will produce huge amounts of nerve gas, I thought first of my children and feared for them and the world into which they have been brought.
AUTHORS' NOTE: This introduction was written by Daniel.
[Page xiv]Even in the liberal democracy in which we live, agreement would be hard to reach about what would make the world a better place for children. My own research on schools (Walsh, 1991, 1992, 1993) has convinced me that well-intentioned people have very different views about what would make the world better for children—views that are based on deeply embedded beliefs about how the world works and how children should fit into that world.
Believing that we are making the world a better place can make us smug, even arrogant—WE researchers (and not you ordinary folks) are going to improve the world. We can hope, but I think that researchers face a more pressing and mundane challenge, that is, to find it out. The reason we should be finding it out is because the alternative to finding it out is not not finding it out, but instead making it up, or, as is more often the case, having it made up for you. Right now, when it comes to children and what we know as a culture about children, those who make it up dominate.
This book is about the process of finding it out. Finding it out is labor-intensive and expensive. One must go out and look and listen and soak and poke and then do it all again and again. Long hours are required to construct a data record from the raw data generated in the field. Finding it out challenges the researcher in her analysis to explore critically not only that part of the world being studied but the very research process itself. Ultimately, all that labor produces knowledge that is uncertain and that will change, but it produces knowledge. The “it” found out will never have the certainty or the universality of the “it” made up. That is how it should be. The construction of knowledge is a human endeavor. It will never be certain.
Finding it out about children is exceptionally difficult—intellectually, physically, and emotionally. Physical, social, cognitive, and political distances between the adult and the child make their relationship very different from the relationships among adults. In doing research with children, one never becomes a child. One remains a very definite and readily identifiable “other.”
In marked contrast to finding it out, making it up presents fewer challenges, takes much less time, and, as a short visit to Barnes and Noble will confirm, is more lucrative. Why spend prolonged time with children in classrooms or homes or playgrounds when one can simply pull an anecdote from here, a little theory from there, and a little “common sense” from one's experience as a parent or a teacher? Explaining what [Page xv]children are like by appealing to some authority is much easier than actually going out and finding out. If an anecdote is required, a visit to the local university lab school or an elite preschool allows one to avoid the less pristine conditions in which the vast majority of contemporary children spend their daily lives.
Those who make it up take many forms. Self-styled “experts” may well make the requisite bows to research (as in “the research says”) but essentially proclaim how children are and how they should be. Less obvious are people who know something about children but who then move into areas in which they have no particular expertise. Consider, for example, how much of what we as a culture know about children, particularly young children, comes from pediatricians and clinical psychologists who write not about children's mental or physical health but about children in general.
Also contributing to made-up knowledge are researchers who fail to recognize that there is more to the world than the part that they are examining. For example, under the hegemony of a rather narrow measurement orientation, much research done in the context of schooling has ignored aspects of children and childhood that cannot be quantified. Another example: Piaget studied children with extreme care, but most often within the context of contrived and meaningless tasks. From this research, he drew conclusions about children in general, conclusions that have not stood up when researchers examined children doing meaningful tasks in familiar situations (e.g., Donaldson, 1978; Gelman, 1979; Hatano & Inagaki, 1986).
Entire categories of children have been made up. Finlan (1994) argued that there is no empirical evidence for learning disabilities as traditionally defined. LD children nevertheless exist as a cultural construct and in the laws of the land. One can go into any school and find them identified and labeled. Vellutino (1987) concluded that no evidence exists that children, or anyone, see letters or words or, for that matter, anything backwards, but the dyslexic child who sees print backwards stands out in our cultural collection of images of children. Walk up to any reasonably educated person on the street and ask him or her about dyslexia and you will hear about children who see letters backwards.
Ironically, the American cultural obsession with being practical works against finding it out. We tend to dismiss that which cannot be immediately applied—”Just find out what works.” We see ourselves as “doers.” Within such a context, those who make it up thrive. If one is [Page xvi]going to make it up anyway, why not make up what people want to know? One cannot guarantee that what is found out is what people want or expect, or that it will lead immediately to practice. In fact, finding it out tends to challenge what a culture knows as well as what it wants to know.
Truly finding it out requires researchers to look in avoided places and in unfamiliar ways. Research has most often been distanced, focused on what Denzin (1989) calls issues, which “have to do with public matters, and institutional structures,” as opposed to troubles, which are “personal matters” (p. 18). Researchers do studies, for example, of day care but ignore the lived realities of the many children who, from a very early age, spend most of their waking hours in institutional care. The result is, as Wolf (1995) points out, findings about academic outcomes for children who have been in day care, the academic backgrounds of day care teachers, how everything about day care that can be measured correlates with everything else that can be measured (whether it makes sense or not)—everything about day care except what it is like for children, and adults, to be there day after day, week after week. Questions such as what it means for children to be in institutional care for most of their early life, and what the implications are for society, are ignored.
Why study children? Our answer: To find it out. And to keep finding it out, because if we do not find it out, someone will make it up. In fact, someone probably has already made it up, and what they make up affects children's lives; it affects how children are viewed and what decisions are made about them. Finding it out challenges dominant images. Making it up maintains them.Themes
Six themes run through this book. The first is the importance of finding it out in context. The “it” we seek to find out is situated, historically, socially, and culturally. Meaning making is situated.
A second, related, theme is the situated nature of the research process—subjects, researchers, the whole endeavor (Wertsch, 1989, p. 15). The researcher—in fact, the research community—is situated historically, socially, and culturally. Many chapters present short reflections by researchers, each exploring a different aspect of the process in terms of her or his own work.
[Page xvii]The third theme is the centrality of social interaction. We are interested in what goes on between children, how children function in groups, and how they transact and interact. The research literature on children teems with within-child explanations. Our focus is on “between,” not “within.”
A fourth theme is the social nature of research. We refer not only to the interactional nature of fieldwork, but, also as important, to the interactions away from the field and one's desk—with colleagues, family, and friends. One does not do research to inform only oneself. One does it to inform others. Informing others should begin early in the process of finding it out and should never stop.
The fifth theme is the centrality of kids, which may seem obvious given the nature of this book. We emphasize that research should keep coming back to the kids. The meanings sought are kids' meanings, not adults'. One difficulty that people who work with children have when they begin to study children is that they focus on the adults' actions toward children; what was intended to be a study of children becomes an evaluation of adults' interactions with children. Adults are unquestionably part of the children's context, but the research is about the kids.
The final theme is the situatedness of methods. We explore methodology extensively in this book, but methods become actualized only in practice. For this reason, we present many detailed examples as well as working researchers' reflections on their work. One can discuss interviewing children, but it is only when one sits down and actually interviews specific children that interviewing becomes a way of generating data. A method is a tool. One can learn much about tools in general, but how and when to use what kind of tool cannot be determined in the absence of a specific context.
An ongoing challenge in writing this book was deciding to what extent it should deal with general issues of doing research and to what extent it should focus only on research with children. In some ways, all research—whether with children, adults, peonies, or quarks—is similar. In other ways, each research study is its own peculiar genre. If stepping in the same river twice is not possible, neither is doing the same research twice. As Comic Brother Dave Mason commented, “You can't do something again. You can do something similar. But you can't do it again.”1
Our strategy is to direct the reader to treatments of topics on which we cannot improve. We apologize in advance for unwittingly going over what others have done better. We assume that the reader has some background [Page xviii]in doing research and in interpretive research in particular. To the extent that we can, we will deal with generic research issues succinctly, pointing out where work with children presents its own challenges. We will discuss in detail perspectives we present that differ in some ways from, or challenge, commonly held ones.
Occasionally, we present lessons of experience from our own fieldwork as short pieces of advice—set off by bullets and in bold print. The short sections contributed by colleagues illustrate key issues in fieldwork with children. Throughout the text are boxes containing lists of references on various topics as well as other useful lists.
The book has three sections. In the first section, we look across the research process, conceptualizing it as a holistic activity. Chapter 1 critiques the dominant research paradigm on children. Chapter 2 presents a view of research as an interpretive science. Chapter 3 explores theory, Chapter 4 examines ethics, and Chapter 5 discusses the role of the researcher. The second section focuses on fieldwork. Chapter 6 examines strategies for generating data, and Chapter 7 addresses the construction of a data record. The final section interrogates the interpretive process and writing—Chapter 8 and 9 respectively. In the conclusion, we struggle to tie everything together.
No one will learn how to do research on children by reading this book. To learn how, one must do it. Someone with a basic grasp of the research endeavor, however, will come away with a stronger sense of the issues involved in trying to understand children's worlds.
This book was written for people who want to find out what the world is like for today's children and how they construct meaning in it. Our focus is on the society in which we live—late 20th century America. Finding it out is not something that one can do about children in general, but rather about specific groups of children in particular contexts.
We fear that the world is becoming a tougher place for children and that this society neither knows enough about children nor appears to want to know enough to help children negotiate that world. A society that avoids knowing about its children has already made an ominous decision about its priorities.Note
1. I have tried without success to locate the album to reference it. I first heard the line in 1966 from Jim Mudd. As far as I could tell, he knew the album by heart.
References[Page 250]1977). Measuring representation: Perils of the correlation coefficient. American Journal of Political Science, 21(4), 805–815.(1994). Researching children's rights to integrity. In B.Mayall (Ed.), Children's childhoods observed and experienced. London: Falmer.(1993). Using a wireless transmission system to observe conversation and social interaction on the playground. In C. H.Hart (Ed.), Children on playgrounds: Research perspectives and applications (pp. 184–209). Albany: State University of New York Press., & (1992). Understanding ethnographic texts. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.(1967). On method: Toward a reconstruction of psychological investigation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.(1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays by M.Bakhtin (C.Emerson & M.Holquist, Eds.). Austin: University of Texas Press.(1991, April). “In the Guinness Book of World Records it says that a girl stayed in kindergarten until she was 13”: First graders who have been retained make sense of their world. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago., & (1996). The epistemology of qualitative research. In R.Jessor, A.Colby, & R. A.Shweder (Eds.), Ethnography and human development: Context and meaning in social inquiry (pp. 54–71). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(1966). The social construction of reality. Garden City, NY: Doubleday., & (1988). Research methods in cultural anthropology. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.(1985). The world as a total system. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.(1988). The curiosity of abused preschool children in mother-present, teacher-present, and stranger-present situations. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 3, 91–105., , & (1986). Social construction, language, and the authority of knowledge: A biographical essay. College English, 48, 773–790.([Page 251]1986). Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(1987). The transactional self. In J. S.Bruner & H.Haste (Eds.), Making sense: The child's construction of the world (pp. 81–96). London: Methuen.(1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(1987). Making sense: The child's construction of reality. New York: Methuen., & (1978). Qualitative knowing in action research. In M.Brenner, P.Marsh, & M.Brenner (Eds.), The social context of method (pp. 184–209). New York: St. Martin's.(1990). Collaborative inquiry methodology. Windsor, Ontario: University of Windsor, Division for Instructional Development.(1996) Cultural psychology. A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.(1954). The relationship of Hanunoo culture to the plant world. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms.(1985). Friendship and peer culture in the early years. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.(1990a). Reconciling theory and data: In situ analysis in a study of oral storybook reading. In M. J.McGee-Brown (Ed.), Processes, applications, and ethics in qualitative research (pp. 358–367). Athens: University of Georgia Press.(1990b). Who the boss?: Dynamic tensions in oral storybook reading. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 3, 231–252.(1986). We cool, tha's why: A study of personhood and place in Hawaiian second graders. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Hawaii.(1992). Fieldwork in educational settings: Methods, pitfalls, and perspectives. London: Falmer.(1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods ((2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.1989). Interpretive interactionism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.(1994). The art and politics of interpretation. In N. K.Denzin & Y. S.Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 500–515). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.(1978). Children's minds. New York: W. W. Norton.(1989a). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 532–550.(1989b). Making fast strategic decisions in high-velocity environments. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 543–576.(1995). The fax, the jazz player, and the self-story teller: How do people organize culture?Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 26(1), 3–26.(1990). Socially constructed readiness for school. The International Journal for Qualitative Studies in Education, 3, 253–269., & (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago: University of Chicago Press., , & (1986). Qualitative methods in research on teaching. In M.Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: Macmillan.(1989). The meaning of validity in qualitative research. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.(1992, April). Post-everything: The word of the moment and how we got here. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco.(1977). When is a context?ICHD Newsletter, 1(2), 5–10., & ([Page 252]1993). (Re)constituting critical traditions. Educational Researcher, 22(6), 24–26., & (1988). Knowing children: Participant observation with minors. Newbury Park, CA: Sage., & (1994). Learning disability: The imaginary disease. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.(1975). Empirical phenomenological analyses of being criminally victimized. In A.Giorgi (Ed.), Phenomenology and psychological research (pp. 135–158). Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press., & (1980). A theory of cognitive development: The control and construction of hierarchies of skills. Psychological Review, 87, 477–531.(1982). Structures, stages, and sequences in cognitive development. In W. A.Collins (Ed.), The concept of development: The Minnesota symposia on child psychology (Vol. 15, pp. 1–28). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.(1987). Humans as self-constructing living systems. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum., & (1992). Developmental systems theory: An integrative approach. Newbury Park, CA: Sage., & (1978). Discipline and punish: The birth of prison. New York: Pantheon.(1988). Children at American and Japanese day-care centers: Ethnography and reflective cross-cultural interviewing. In H.Trueba & C.Delgado-Gaitan (Eds.), School and society: Learning content through culture (pp. 73–97). New York: Praeger., & (1995). Raising children in a socially toxic environment. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.(1990). Mayan exploratory play and development. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.(1992). Theoretical and methodological perspectives in the interpretive study of children. In W. A.Corsaro & P. J.Miller (Eds.), New directions in child development (pp. 5–23). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass., , & (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.(1983). Local knowledge: Further essays in interpretive anthropology. New York: Basic Books.(1986). Making experience, authoring selves. In V. W.Turner & E. M.Bruner (Eds.), The anthropology of experience (pp. 373–380). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.(1979). Preschool thought. American Psychologist, 34, 900–905.(1983). A review of some Piagetian concepts. In P. H.Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Cognitive Development (pp. 167–230). New York: Wiley., & (1985). The social constructionist movement in modern psychology. American Psychologist, 40(3), 266–275.(1989). Ethnographic decisions tree modeling. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.(1967). The constant comparative method of qualitative analysis. In B. G.Glaser & A. L.Strauss (Eds.), The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research (pp. 101–116). Chicago: Aldine.(1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine., & (1992). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction. White Plains, NY: Longman., & ([Page 253]1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(1984). Use-lives of automobiles in America: A preliminary archaeological view. In R. A.Gould (Ed.), Toward an ethno-archaeology of modern America. Providence, RI: Brown University Press., & (1993). Ready for what? Constructing meanings of readiness for kindergarten. Albany: State University of New York Press.(1996). Ventriloquating the meanings of mathematics. Curriculum Studies, 4(3), 301–328., & (1989). Development of the ego. Madison, CT: International Universities Press.(1990). Understanding children: Essays in honor of Margaret Donaldson. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell., & (1982, January). Schooling children in a nasty climate: An interview with Jerome Bruner. Psychology Today, pp. 57–63.(1883). The content of children's minds. Princeton Review, 2, 249–272.(1901). Ideal school as based on child study. In Journal of the Proceedings of the Fortieth Annual Meeting of the National Education Association (pp. 474–488). Washington, DC: National Education Association of America.(1994). “Children are not meant to be studied.…”Our Schools/Our Selves, 5(3), 6–27.(1987). Growing into rules. In J.Bruner & H.Haste (Eds.), Making sense: The child's construction of the world (pp. 163–195). New York: Methuen.(1986). Two courses of expertise. In H.Stevenson, H.Azuma, & K.Hakuta (Eds.), Child development and education in Japan (pp. 262–272). New York: Freeman., & (1988). The relationship of day care quality to children's free-play behavior and social problem solving skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 3, 39–53., & (1995). Teaching large-group time in a preschool classroom: The teacher as orchestra leader. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.(1988). Same- and cross-sex friends: Implications for interaction and social skills. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 3, 21–37.(1994). Data management and analysis methods. In N. K.Denzin & Y.Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 428–444). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage., & (1982). Ethnographic monitoring. In H.Trueba, G. P.Guthrie, & K. H.Au (Eds.), Culture in the bilingual classroom: Studies in classroom ethnography (pp. 56–68). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.(1992). Piagetian and post-Piagetian conceptions of development and their implications for science education in early childhood. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7, 115–133.(1987). Fieldwork. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.(1996). Ethnographic methods in contemporary perspective. In R.Jessor, A.Colby, & R. A.Shweder (Eds.), Ethnography and human development: Context and meaning in social inquiry (pp. 3–14). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(1994). Designing social inquiry. Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press., , &: (1986). The struggle for the American curriculum 1893–1958. Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul.([Page 254]1990). Crafting selves: Power, gender, and discourses of identity in a Japanese workplace. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(1986). The concept of activity in Soviet psychology: Vygotsky, his disciples and critics. American Psychologist, 41(3), 264–274.(1993). Methods of educational and social science research: An integrative approach. New York: Longman.(1991). Social science and the self: Personal essays as an art form. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.(1970). The structure of scientific revolutions ((2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.1977). Falsification and the methodology of scientific research programmes. In I.Lakatos & A.Musgrave (Eds.), Criticism and the growth of knowledge (pp. 91–196). London: Cambridge University Press.(1994). Power and emotion in infant-toddler day care. Albany: State University of New York Press.(1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In J.Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.(1966). The savage mind ((2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.1993). “Let's story!”: Chinese preschoolers’ joint exploration of two picture books. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.(1995). Science discourse in one American kindergarten classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.(1995). Emerging criteria for quality in qualitative and interpretive research. Qualitative Inquiry, 1(3), 275–289.(1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage., & (1979). The making of a mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(1976). A river runs through it and other stories. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(1988). The least-adult role in studying children. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 16, 433–467.(1994). Children in action at home and school. In B.Mayall (Ed.), Children's childhoods observed and experienced. London: Falmer.(1982). Rigor and respect as standards in ethnographic description. Harvard Educational Review, 52, 321–328.(1978). The social organization of behavior: Interactional approaches. Annual Review of Anthropology, 7, 321–345., & (1980). The competent student. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 11(3), 131–152.(1986). Handicapping the handicapped. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press., , & (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage., & (1989). Mind and activity in Vygotsky's work: An expanded frame of reference. Cultural Dynamics, 11(2), 162–187.(1986). Research interviewing: Context and narrative. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.(1994). Parallels and differences between children's and women's studies. In B.Mayall (Ed.), Children's childhoods observed and experienced. London: Falmer.(1990). Thirty years of fieldnotes: Changing relationships to the text. In R.Sanjek (Ed.), Fieldnotes: The makings of anthropology. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.([Page 255]1987). Rough-and-tumble play: Developmental and educational significance. Educational Psychology, 22, 23–43.(1988). Rough-and-tumble play on the elementary school playground. Young Children, 43, 14–17., & (1982). The researcher and subjectivity: Reflections on an ethnography of school and community. In G.Spindler (Ed.), Doing the ethnography of schooling: Educational anthropology in action (pp. 48–67). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.(1988). In search of subjectivity: One's own. Educational Researcher, 17(7), 17–22.(1996). High risk children in schools: Constructing sustaining relationships. New York: Routledge., & (1990). Writing strategies: Reaching diverse audiences. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.(1994). Writing: A method of inquiry. In N. K.Denzin & Y. S.Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 516–529). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.(1979). Philosophy in the mirror of nature. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.(1989). Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.(1974). An analysis of the course of a joke's telling in the course of conversation. In R.Bauman & J.Sherzerf (Eds.), Explorations in the ethnography of speaking. New York: Cambridge University Press.(1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 5, 696–735., , & (1983). Developmental systems: Contexts and evolution. In R H.Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 237–294). New York: Wiley.(Sanjek, R. (Ed.). (1990). Fieldnotes: The makings of anthropology. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.1995). Significant benefits: The High/Scope Perry Preschool study through age 27. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press., & (1969). Homosexuality in the Philippines and the United States: The writing on the wall. Journal of Social Psychology, 79, 3–12., & (1989). Social accountability and the social construction of “you.” In J.Shotter & K. J.Gergen (Eds.), Texts of identity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.(1992). Planning ethically responsible research: A guide for students and internal review boards. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.(1989, November). Nepali children's formation of social selves. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association, Phoenix.(1970). Fieldwork among the Menomini. In G.Spindler (Ed.), Being an anthropologist: Fieldwork in eleven cultures (pp. 267–301). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston., & (1987). Interpretive ethnography of education: At home and abroad. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston., & (1993). Handbook of research on the education of young children. New York: Macmillan.(1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.(1995). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.(Stanley, B., & Sieber, J. E. (Eds.). (1992). Social research on children and adolescents: Ethical issues. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.[Page 256]1987). Qualitative analysis for social scientists. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.(1993). Gender play: Girls and boys in school. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.(1992). A child on the edge: Silent rejection. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.(1990). The ethics of polyvocal ethnography: Empowering versus textualizing children and teachers. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 3, 271–283., & (1989). Preschool in three cultures: Japan, China, and the United States. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press., , & (1993). The unintelligible voices that make sense: Ting-ting and Ying learning to become preschool students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.(1989). The social construction of social construction. In W.Damon (Ed.), Child development today and tomorrow. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.(1988). Tales of the field: On writing ethnography. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.(1987). Dyslexia. Scientific American, 256(3), 34–43.(1968). General system theory. New York: George Braziller.(1987). Thinking and speech. In R. W.Rieber & A. S.Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Vol. 1. Problems of general psychology. New York: Plenum. (Original work published 1934)(1986). Studying children: Phenomenological insights. Human Studies, 9, 71–92.(1991). Reconstructing the discourse on development appropriateness: A developmental perspective. Early Education and Development, 2, 109–119.(1992, December). Implications of a post-Piagetian perspective for early childhood education: Helping children make sense. Paper presented at the Taipei Municipal Teachers College Conference on Early Childhood Education, Taipei, Taiwan.(1993, April). Time to move on: A few thoughts on a post-Piagetian/cultural psychology. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Atlanta.(1993). The interpretive voice: Qualitative research in early childhood education. In B.Spodek (Ed.), Handbook of research on the education of young children. New York: Free Press., , & (1996). Working in the interpretive zone: Conceptualizing collaboration in qualitative research terms. Educational Researcher, 25(5), 5–15., & (1966). Unobtrusive measures: Nonreactive research in the social sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally., , , & (1995). Computer programs for qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage., & (1987a). Systematic fieldwork: Vol. 1. Foundations of ethnography and interviewing. Newbury Park, CA: Sage., & (1987b). Systematic fieldwork: Vol. 2. Ethnographic analysis and data management. Newbury Park, CA: Sage., & (1979). Introduction. In J. V.Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.(1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.([Page 257]1989). A sociocultural approach to mind. In W.Damon (Ed.), Child development today and tomorrow. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.(1981). Confessions of a “trained” observer. In T. S.Popkewitz & B. R.Tabachnick (Eds.), The study of schooling: Field based methodologies in educational research and evaluation (pp. 247–263). New York: Praeger.(1990). Writing up qualitative research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.(1994). Doing day care. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.(1995). If you haven't been there, you don't know what it's like: Life at Enchanted Gate from the inside. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.(
About the Authors[Page 267]
M. Elizabeth Graue, a former early childhood special education and kindergarten teacher, is Associate Professor in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She received her PhD in research methodologies at the University of Colorado at Boulder in 1990. Her dissertation, Socially Constructed Readiness for Kindergarten in Three Communities, won awards from the American Educational Research Association for qualitative research methods and for early childhood education. It was later published as Ready for What? Constructing Meanings of Readiness for Kindergarten (1993). She has continued to do research on beliefs about readiness, with a particular focus on academic redshirting, instructional assessment, and parent relationships with public schools. She is Associate Editor of the Review of Educational Research (1996–1999) and has published work in Early Childhood Research Quarterly, Early Education and Development, Educational Policy, Journal of Curriculum Studies, and Urban Education. She is married to Clark Landis and has two sons, Sam and Max.
Daniel J. Walsh is Associate Professor of Early Childhood Education at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. He received his PhD from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1985. His interest in interpretive research began with two courses on the ethnography of schooling he took with George and Louise Spindler at Wisconsin. He spent a dozen [Page 268]years as a prekindergarten and kindergarten teacher, the majority of those years in the Chicago public schools. His research has focused on policy and practice in early public schooling, teachers' perspectives as contexts for development, post-Piagetian developmental theory, and research methodology. He is past Associate Editor of the Early Childhood Research Quarterly and has published in various journals, including Journal of Curriculum Studies, Teachers College Record, Educational Foundations, Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Early Education and Development, and Psychological Bulletin. He is the author, with Robert Pianta, of High Risk Children in Schools: Constructing Sustaining Relationships. He is married to Naneera Vidhayasirinun and has two children, Buck, 4, and Scooter, 11. He spends as much time as he can on his bicycle and ice skates, preferably with the three people just mentioned.
About the Contributors[Page 269]
Deborah Ceglowski is Assistant Professor of Early Childhood Education in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction and Outreach Coordinator for the Center for Early Education and Development at the University of Minnesota. A former program specialist with Head Start, she received her PhD at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. She is a recipient of a Bush Leadership Fellowship and the Mary Catherine Ellwein dissertation award from the American Educational Research Association. Ceglowski's research interests include qualitative studies of the impact of policies on teachers, parents, and children and employing alternative writing strategies in research.
Anne Haas Dyson is Professor of Language, Literacy and Culture in the School of Education at the University of California, Berkeley. A former teacher of young children, she studies the social lives and literacy learning of schoolchildren. Among her publications are The Need for Story: Cultural Diversity in Classroom and Community (co-edited with Celia Genishi), Social Worlds of Children Learning to Write in an Urban Primary School, which was awarded the NCTE's David Russell Award for Distinguished Research, and Writing Superheroes: Contemporary Childhood, Popular Culture, and Classroom Literacy.
[Page 270]David E. Fernie is Professor of Early Childhood Education in the School of Teaching and Learning, The Ohio State University College of Education. His interests include children's play, their understanding and use of media/technology, and the ethnographic study of preschool classrooms.
Rebecca Kantor is an Associate Professor in the School of Teaching and Learning, College of Education at The Ohio State University (OSU). Her research interests include language and social processes in early childhood settings, children's social worlds and friendships, and preschool ethnography. After 14 years as director of the Sophie Rogers Lab School at OSU, she now serves as its Curriculum Adviser.
Robin Lynn Leavitt is Associate Professor and Chair of the Educational Studies Department at Illinois Wesleyan University. She received her PhD in Educational Policy Studies from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. She is the author of Power and Emotion in Infant-Toddler Day Care and several book chapters and articles on day care. Leavitt's research is interpretive and focuses on the everyday lived experiences of young children in early childhood settings.
Peggy J. Miller is Professor of Speech Communication and Professor of Psychology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. She received her PhD from Teachers College, Columbia University. She is interested in everyday discourse as a medium of socialization and has written extensively on narrative practices in families from a variety of cultural groups. She is the author of Amy, Wendy, and Beth: Learning Language in South Baltimore and (with Wendy Haight) Pretending at Home: Early Development in a Sociocultural Context. She is co-editor (with William Corsaro) of Interpretive Approaches to children's Socialization and co-editor (with Jacqueline Goodnow and Frank Kessel) of Cultural Practices as Context for Development.
Hsueh-Yin Ting is Associate Professor and head of the Center for Early Childhood Education at National Hsin-Chu Teachers College in Taiwan. She received her PhD in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Her master's and doctoral research focuses on peer relationships in early childhood classrooms. Her interests in the interplay between culture and individual also led her to do a study exploring how school culture shapes teacher education.