Abstract
Conventional psychological research has focused primarily on intrapersonal dimensions of human activity, often evading shared knowledge, interpersonal perspective-taking, and collective beliefs. The ideology of individualism and the ‘embryonic fallacy’ are largely responsible for the focus on the individual as an isolated entity. Most available methods for assessment are transacted through the temporary separation of a “subject” from a familiar cultural setting. In the case of children, this instantly distances them from known surroundings. When researchers adopt methods created and standardized in a different cultural context, there is a double alienation; first of the social setting, and the second, more profound (but less evident) distancing is ideological, between the shared reality of the community to which the child belongs and the culture of origin of the method. This paper provides evidence from research on Indian children to discuss the importance of adaptation to the context and shared understanding. By identifying three distinct levels of activity, the subjective, inter-subjective, and inter-objective, we bring forward some of the processes that often remain hidden in the study of the individual. These levels are then employed to discuss specific research encounters.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Names changed
References
Abels, M. (2008). Field observations from rural Gujarat. In S. Anandalakshmy, N. Chaudhary, & N. Sharma (Eds.), Researching families and children: culturally appropriate methods (pp. 211–231). New Delhi: Sage.
Allport, G. W. (1960). The open system of personality theory. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61(3), 301–310.
Anandalakshmy, S., Chaudhary, N., & Sharma, N. (2008). End notes. In S. Anandalakshmy, N. Chaudhary, & N. Sharma (Eds.), Researching families and children: culturally appropriate methods (pp. 233–241). New Delhi: Sage.
Bellah, R. N., Madsen, R., Sullivan, W. M., Swidler, A., & Tipton, S. M. (1996). Habits of the heart. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bhargava, P. (2011). Children’s understanding of self and others. Unpublished doctoral dissertation supervised by Dr. Nandita Chaudhary. University of Delhi, Delhi.
Branco, A., & Valsiner, J. (1997). Changing methodologies: a co-constructivist study of goal orientations in social interactions. Psychology in Developing Societies, 9(1), 35–64.
Burman, E. (1994). Deconstructing developmental psychology. New York: Routledge.
Chaudhary, N. (2008). Methods for a cultural science. In S. Anandalakshmy, N. Chaudhary, & N. Sharma (Eds.), Researching families and children: culturally appropriate methods (pp. 29–52). New Delhi: Sage.
Chaudhary, N. (2012). Mental sociality and collective identity: A dialogical analysis of the Indian sense of self. In H. J. H. Hermans (Ed.), Special issue on Applications of Dialogical Self theory. New directions for child and adolescent development, 137(Fall), 53–68.
Chaudhary, N. (2013). Parents’ beliefs, socialisation practices and children’s development in Indian families. Unpublished report of major research project for the University Grants Commission, New Delhi.
Coehlo, N. E., & Figueiredo, L. C. (2003). Patterns of intersubjectivity in the constitution of subjectivity: dimensions of otherness. Culture and Psychology, 9(3), 193–209.
Gagnier, R. (1991). Subjectivities: a history of self-representation in Britain, 1832–1920. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gallagher, S. (2001). The practice of mind: theory, simulation or interaction? Journal of Consciousness Studies, 5–7, 83–108.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York: Basic Books.
Gillespie, A., & Cornish, F. (2009). Intersubjectivity: towards a dialogical analysis. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 40(1), 19–46.
Gottlieb, G. (2003). Probablistic epigenesis of development. In J. Valsiner & K. J. Connolly (Eds.), Handbook of developmental psychology (pp. 3–17). London: Sage.
Grossen, M. (2010). Interaction analysis and theory: a dialogical perspective. Integrated Psychological and Behavioural Sciences, 44(1), 1–22.
Günther, I. deA. (1998). Contacting subjects: The untold story. Culture and Psychology, 4(1), 65–74.
Habermas, J. (1970). Towards a theory of communicative competence. In H. P. Dreitzel (Ed.), Recent sociology (Vol. XII, pp. 115–148). London: Macmillan.
Hall, D. E. (2004). Subjectivity. New York: Routledge.
Haraway, D. (1989). Primate visions: gender, race and nature in the world of modern science. London: Verso.
Hermans, H. H. (2012). Dialogical self theory and the increasing multiplicity of I-positions in a globalizing society: An introduction. In H. J. H. Hermans (Ed.), Special issue on Applications of Dialogical Self theory. New directions for child and adolescent development, 137 (Chapter 1).
Husserl, E. (1929/1977). Cartesian meditations. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Hutto, D. D. (2007). The narrative practice hypothesis: origins and applications of folk psychology. Narrative and Understanding Persons: Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplement, 82, 43–68.
James, W. (1884). On some omissions of introspective psychology. Mind, 9(33), 1–26.
Lillard, A. S., & Sobel, D. M. (1999). Lion Kings or puppies: the influence of fantasy on children’s understanding of pretense. Developmental Science, 2(1), 75–80.
Mead, G. H. (1934). In C. W. Morris (Ed.), Mind, self and society from the standpoint of a social behaviourist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Menon, U. (2003). Morality and context: a study of Hindu understandings. In J. Valsiner & K. J. Connolly (Eds.), Handbook of developmental psychology (pp. 431–449). London: Sage.
Misra, G. (2010). Introductory address. National Symposium on Culture and Cognition: A Developmental Perspective, Department of Psychology, University of Delhi, January 23–25, 2011.
Moghaddam, F. (2003). Interobjectivity and culture. Culture and Psychology, 9(3), 221–232.
Moghaddam, F. (2010). Intersubjectivity, interobjectivity and the embryonic fallacy in developmental science. Culture and Psychology, 16(4), 465–475.
Oppenheim, R. W. (1981). Ontogenetic adaptations and retrogressive processes in the development of the nervous system and behaviour: a neuroembryological perspective. In K. J. Connolly & H. F. R. Prechtl (Eds.), Maturation and development. London: Heinemann.
Pillai, P. (2012). Children’s understanding of truth. Unpublished doctoral dissertation supervised by Dr. Nandita Chaudhary. University of Delhi, Delhi.
Reddy, V. (2008). How infants know minds. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rommetveit, R. (1990). On axiomatic features of a dialogical approach to language and mind. In I. Markova & K. Foppa (Eds.), The dynamics of dialogue (pp. 77–99). Hemel Hempstead: Hatvester Wheatsheaf.
Scribner, S. (1976). Situating the experiment in cross-cultural research. In K. E. Reigel & G. A. Meacham (Eds.), The developing individual in a changing world. The Hague: Merton.
Sharma, N. (2008). Research as intervention. In S. Anandalakshmy, N. Chaudhary, & N. Sharma (Eds.), Researching families and children: culturally appropriate methods (pp. 67–86). New Delhi: Sage.
Sinha, C. (2000). Culture, language and the emergence of subjectivity. Culture and Psychology, 6(2), 197–208.
Tomar, R. (2009). Conformity in the preschool years: The impact of majority opinion and reciprocity. Unpublished masters dissertation supervised by Dr. Nandita Chaudhary. University of Delhi, Delhi.
Trawick, M. (1990). Notes on love in a Tamil family. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Trevarthen, C. (1979). Communication and cooperation in early infancy. A description of primary intersubjectivity. In M. Bullowa (Ed.), Before speech: the beginning of human communication (pp. 321–347). London: Cambridge University Press.
Valsiner, J. (2007). Culture in minds and societies. New Delhi: Sage.
Valsiner, J., & Connolly, K. (2003). Introduction. In J. Valsiner & K. J. Connolly (Eds.), Handbook of developmental psychology (pp. ix–xviii). London: Sage.
Wilson, T. D. (2002). Alfred Schutz, phenomenology and research methodology for information behavior research. A paper delivered at ISIC4- Fourth international conference on information seeking in context, Universidade Lusiada, Lisbon, Portugal, September 11–13, 2002. Retrieved 16th October, 2012, from http://informationr.net/tdw/publ/paprs/schutz02.html.
Acknowledgments
Some of the research quoted in this chapter has been possible on account of generous research grants. The authors would like to thank the University Grants Commission, New Delhi, India; and the Indian Council for Social Science Research, New Delhi, India.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Nandita Chaudhary, Ph. D. works as Associate Professor at the Lady Irwin College, University of Delhi. She has been a Fulbright scholar at the Psychology Department, Clark University, USA, during the years 1993–94. She is the author of “Listening to Culture” (2004, Sage), and co-edited two volumes, “Dynamic process methodology and the social and developmental sciences” (2009, Springer) and “Constructing research methods: Insights from the field” (2008, Sage). Additionally, she has authored several papers in national and international journals and books. She is the Associate Editor for “Culture and Psychology” (Sage), Member, Editorial Board, “Fathering”, consulting editor for several other journals like “Psychological Studies”.
Current themes of research:
Nandita has participated in international collaborations in the area of culture, children’s development and family studies, and continues to supervise several research endeavors and doctoral students. She has also been an advisor to several national and international agencies during her career.
Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:
Chaudhary, N. (2012). Collisions, confrontations and collaborations of the self in culture: A commentary. In M. B. Ligorio, & M. César (Eds.), The interplay between dialogical learning and dialogical self. Series ed. J. Valsiner, Book series, Advances in Cultural Psychology. (pp. 291-316). Charlotte, NC.: Information Age.
Chaudhary, N. (2012). Father’s role in the Indian family: A story that must be told. In D. Shwalb, B. Shwalb, & M. Lamb (Eds.), The father’s role: Cross-cultural perspectives. (pp. 68 – 94). New York: Routledge.
Chaudhary, N. (2012). Negotiating with autonomy and relatedness: Dialogical processes in everyday lives of Indians. Chapter 9 (pp. 189 – 184). In H. M. J. Hermans, & T. Gieser (Eds.), Handbook of Dialogical Self Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Chaudhary, N. (2011). Affective networks: The social terrain of a complex culture. In J. Valsiner (Ed.), Oxford handbook of culture and psychology. (pp. 901 – 912). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Chaudhary, N. (2011). Rethinking human development research and theory in contemporary Indian society. In G. Misra (Ed.), Contemporary Indian psychology. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Punya Pillai, Ph. D. is Assistant Professor, Department of Human Development and Childhood Studies, Lady Irwin College, University of Delhi, New Delhi, India. She has recently completed her doctorate from University of Delhi on “Children’s understanding of truth”.
Current themes of research:
Her areas of interest are Cognition, Language and Developmental processes in Culture.
Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:
Tuli, M., Pillai, P., & Chaudhary, N. (2010). Context and processes of infant development: What we do (and don’t) know about babies. Psychological Foundations, XI(II), 13 – 20.
Chaudhary, N. & Pillai, P. (2009). How infants know minds: A book review. Psychological Studies, 54(2): 163-165
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chaudhary, N., Pillai, P. Research and the young child in India: shifting from alienation to adaptability using an expanded framework. Eur J Psychol Educ 31, 29–42 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-014-0221-x
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-014-0221-x