Video Methods: Researching Sociomaterial Points-of-View in Children’s Play Practices with IoToys

  • Thomas Enemark LundtofteEmail author
  • Stine Liv Johansen
Part of the Studies in Childhood and Youth book series (SCY)


Children’s play practices with Internet-connected toys occur in everyday situations across online and offline domains. The video-ethnographic ‘Points-of-View’ (POV) method presented here provides up-close access to sociomaterial practices between children and digital toys. We draw on a dual camera setup, providing audio-visual data from both ends of the interactions and present examples of empirical data created using this method, followed by analysis and discussion of how these examples provide some much-needed nuances on the subject of digital play. The POV method represents a rigid type of video ethnography in terms of camerawork, aiming at high levels of audio-visual comparability across informants and settings. Lastly, we discuss problems and suggest improvements to the method.


Young children Video ethnography Tablet computer Play practices Sociomateriality 


  1. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  2. Burnett, C. (2017). The fluid materiality of tablets: Examining ‘the iPad multiple’ in a primary classroom. In C. Burnett, G. Merchant, A. Simpson, & M. Walsh (Eds.), The case of the iPad: Mobile literacies in education (pp. 15–29). Singapore: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Coad, J., Gibson, F., Horstman, M., Milnes, L., Randall, D., & Carter, B. (2015). Be my guest! Challenges and practical solutions of undertaking interviews with children in the home setting. Journal of Child Health Care, 19(4), 432–443. Scholar
  4. Cowan, K. (2014). Multimodal transcription of video: Examining interaction in early years classrooms. Classroom Discourse, 5(1), 6–21. Scholar
  5. Derry, S. J., Pea, R. D., Barron, B., Engle, R. A., Erickson, F., Goldman, R., & Sherin B. L. (2010). Conducting video research in the learning sciences: Guidance on selection, analysis, technology, and ethics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(1), 3–53. Scholar
  6. Fine, G. A., & Sandstrom, K. L. (1988). Knowing children: Participant observation with minors (Vol. 15). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Fleer, M. (2014). Beyond developmental geology: A cultural-historical theorization of digital visual technologies for studying young children’s development. In M. Fleer & A. Ridgway (Eds.), Visual methodologies and digital tools for researching with young children: Transforming visuality (Vol. 10). Cham: Springer International Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  9. Gherardi, S. (2017). Sociomateriality in posthuman practice theory. In A. Hui, T. Schatzki, & E. Shove (Eds.), The nexus of practices (pp. 38–51). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Hall, S. (2007 [1973]). Encoding, decoding. In S. During (Ed.), The cultural studies reader (Vol. 3., pp. 90–103). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography: Principles in practice (Vol. 3). London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Harris, A. M. (2016). Video as method. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J., & Luff, P. (2010). Video in qualitative research: Analysing social interaction in everyday life. Los Angeles and London: Sage.Google Scholar
  14. Holloway, D., & Green, L. (2016). The internet of toys. Communication Research and Practice, 2(4), 506–519. Scholar
  15. Idhe, D. (1993). Postphenomenology: Essays in the postmodern context. Evanston: Northwestern University Print.Google Scholar
  16. Johansen, S. L., & Karoff, H. S. (2010). På besøg som forsker: feltarbejde i private hjem. In T. Bjørner (Ed.), Den oplevede virkelighed: 11 eksempler på kvalitativ metode i praksis (pp. 17–35). Aalborg: Aalborg Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
  17. Karoff, H. S. (2013). Om leg: legens medier, praktikker og stemninger (Vol. 1, udgave). Kbh: Akademisk Forlag.Google Scholar
  18. Kress, G., & Leeuwen, T. v. (2001). Multimodal discourse: The modes and media of contemporary communication. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  19. Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Lie, M., & Sørensen, K. H. (1996). Making technology our own? Domesticating technology into everyday life. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Lundtofte, T. E. (2017). Young children’s media play in an app-based transmedia environment. Paper presented at Nordmedia 2017, Tampere.
  22. Marsh, J. (2017). The internet of toys: A posthuman and multimodal analysis of connected play. Teachers College Record, 119(15), 1–32.Google Scholar
  23. Marsh, J., Brooks, G., Hughes, J., Ritchie, L., Roberts, S., & Wright, K. (2005). Digital beginnings: Young children’s use of popular culture, media and new technologies. Retrieved from Sheffield
  24. Marsh, J., Hannon, P., Lewis, M., & Ritchie, L. (2017). Young children’s initiation into family literacy practices in the digital age. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 15(1), 47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marsh, J., Plowman, L., Yamada-Rice, D., Bishop, J., Lahmar, J., & Scott, F. (2015). Exploring play and creativity in pre-schoolers’ use of apps: Final project report. Retrieved from
  26. Masheroni, G., & Holloway, D. (2017). The internet of toys: A report on media and social discourses around young children and IoToys. Retrieved from:
  27. McPake, J., Plowman, L., & Stephen, C. (2013). Pre-school children creating and communicating with digital technologies in the home. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(3), 421–431. Scholar
  28. Morley, J. (2017). Technologies within and beyond practices. In A. Hui, T. Schatzki, & E. Shove (Eds.), The nexus of practices (pp. 81–97). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Nicolini, D. (2009). Zooming in and out: Studying practices by switching theoretical lenses and trailing connections. Organization Studies, 30(12), 1391–1418. Scholar
  30. Pink, S. (2013). Doing visual ethnography (Vol. 3). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  31. Plowman, L. (2016). Rethinking context: Digital technologies and children’s everyday lives. Children’s Geographies, 14(2), 190–202. Scholar
  32. Plowman, L., McPake, J., & Stephen, C. (2008). Just picking it up? Young children learning with technology at home. Cambridge Journal of Education, 38(3), 303–319. Scholar
  33. Reckwitz, A. (2002). Towards a theory of social practices, a development in cultural theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Reckwitz, A. (2017). Practices and their affects. In A. Hui, T. Schatzki, & E. Shove (Eds.), The nexus of practices (pp. 114–125). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Rouch, J. (2003 [1974]). The camera and man. In J. Rouch & S. Feld (Eds.), Ciné-Ethnography (New ed., Vol. 13, pp. 29–46). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  36. Schatzki, T. R. (2001). Practice mind-ed orders. In T. R. Schatzki, E. V. Savigny, & K. K. Cetina (Eds.), The practice turn in contemporary theory (pp. 50–63). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Taylor, R. (2014). Meaning between, in and around words, gestures and postures—Multimodal meaning-making in children’s classroom discourse. Language and Education, 28(5), 401–420. Scholar
  38. van Dijck, J. (2014). Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big Data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance & Society, 12(2), 197–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Thomas Enemark Lundtofte
    • 1
    Email author
  • Stine Liv Johansen
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Southern DenmarkOdenseDenmark
  2. 2.Aarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark

Personalised recommendations