Advertisement

Hybrid Methods for Hybrid Play: A Research Toolkit

  • Giovanna MascheroniEmail author
  • Donell Holloway
Chapter
Part of the Studies in Childhood and Youth book series (SCY)

Abstract

In this chapter we outline a research toolkit for the study of Internet-connected toys and their processual and situated affordances. We account for the complex and varied ways in which connected toys, children, adults and media infrastructures interrelate and interact to form systems of meaning and ensembles of technologies and agency, which constitute the digital materialities and social practices of connected play. This toolkit of research methods uses an ethnographic methodology but is informed by two epistemological approaches—phenomenological and non-representational. Thus, this toolkit takes into account the sociocultural context, materiality and symbolic dimensions of connected toy use.

Keywords

Internet of toys Research methods Non-representational Materialist phenomenology Walkthrough method 

References

  1. Aarsand, P. (2016). Children’s media practices: Challenges and dilemmas for the qualitative researcher. Journal of Children and Media, 10(1), 90–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barassi, V. (2017). BabyVeillance? Expecting parents, online surveillance and the cultural specificity of pregnancy apps. Social Media + Society, 3(2), 1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305117707188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cameron, H. (2005). Asking the tough questions: A guide to ethical practices in interviewing young children. Early Child Development and Care, 175(6), 597–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chaudron, S., et al. (2018). Rules of engagement: Family rules on young children’s access to and use of technologies. In S. Danby, M. Fleer, C. Davidson, & M. Hatzigianni (Eds.), Digital childhoods: International perspectives on early childhood education and development (pp. 131–145). Singapore: Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Christensen, P., & Prout, A. (2002). Working with ethical symmetry in social research with children. Childhood, 9(4), 477–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Costa, E. (2018). Affordances-in-practice: An ethnographic critique of social media logic and context collapse. New Media & Society, online first.Google Scholar
  7. Couldry, N. (2004). Theorising media as practice. Social Semiotics, 14(2), 115–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Couldry, N. (2012). Media, society, world: Social theory and digital media practice. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  9. Couldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2017). The mediated construction of reality. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  10. Davis, J. L., & Chouinard, J. B. (2016). Theorizing affordances: From request to refuse. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 36(4), 241–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Du Gay, P., Hall, S., Janes, L., Madsen, A. K., Mackay, H., & Negus, K. (2013). Doing cultural studies: The story of the Sony Walkman. Second Edition (1st ed., 1997). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Evans, S. K., Pearce, K. E., Vitak, J., & Treem, J. W. (2017). Explicating affordances: A conceptual framework for understanding affordances in communication research. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(1), 35–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  14. Green, L., Stevenson, K., Holloway, D., et al. (2017). Like mother, like daughter? Unboxing an Etsy childhood. In M. Dezuanni (Ed.), At home with digital media. Brisbane: QUT Digital Media Research Centre.Google Scholar
  15. Haddon, L., & Holloway D. (2018). Parental evaluations of young children’s touchscreen technologies. In G. Mascheroni (Ed.), Nordicom 2018 yearbook on digital parenting. Gothenburg: Nordic Information Centre for Media and Cmmunication Research (Nordicom).Google Scholar
  16. Hine, C. (2015). Ethnography for the internet: Embedded, embodied and everyday. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  17. Holloway, D., & Green, L. (2016). The internet of toys. Communication Research and Practice, 2(4), 506–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holloway, D., & Stevenson, K. (2017). Parent as field collaborator when interviewing the pre-verbal and early verbal child. DigiLitEY Blog. Retrieved from https://digilitey.wordpress.com/2017/01/24/parent-as-field-collaborator-when-interviewing-the-pre-verbal-and-early-verbal-child/.
  19. Hutchby, I. (2001). Technologies, texts and affordances. Sociology, 35(2), 441–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hutchby, I. (2014). Communicative affordances and participation frameworks in mediated interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 72, 86–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Koller, D., & San Juan, V. (2015). Play-based interview methods for exploring young children’s perspectives on inclusion. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 28(5), 610–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lievrouw, L. A., & Livingstone, S. (2006). Introduction to the first edition (2002): The social shaping and consequences of ICTs. In L. A. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.), Handbook of new media (pp. 15–32). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Light, B., Burgess, J., & Duguay, S. (2018). The walkthrough method: An approach to the study of apps. New Media & Society, 20(3), 881–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Manches, A., Duncan, P., Plowman, L., & Sabeti, S. (2015). Three questions about the internet of things and children. TechTrends, 59(1), 76–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Marsh, J. (2017). The internet of toys: A posthuman and multimodal analysis of connected play. Teachers College Record, 119(15), 1–32.Google Scholar
  26. 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), 47–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Marsh, J., Plowman, L., Yamada-Rice, D., Bishop, J.C., … Winter, P. (2015). Exploring play and creativity in pre-schoolers’ use of apps: Final project report. Retrieved from www.techandplay.org.
  28. Mascheroni, G., & Holloway, D. (Eds.). (2017). The internet of toys: A report on media and social discourses around young children and IoToys. DigiLitEY. Retrieved April 26, 2018 from http://digilitey.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/IoToys-June-2017-reduced.pdf.
  29. Noppari, E., Uusitalo, N., & Kupiainen, R. (2017). Talk to me! Possibilities of constructing children’s voices in the domestic research context. Childhood, 24(1), 68–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books. Google Scholar
  31. Pink, S., & Mackley, K. L. (2012). Video and a sense of the invisible: Approaching domestic energy consumption through the sensory home. Sociological Research Online, 17(1), 3. Retrieved from http://www.socresonline.org.uk/17/1/3.html.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pink, S., & Mackley, K. L. (2014). Re-enactment methodologies for everyday life research: Art therapy insights for video ethnography. Visual Studies, 29(2), 146–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Pink, S., Ardèvol, E., & Lanzeni, D. (Eds.). (2016a). Digital materialities: Design and anthropology. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
  34. Pink, S., Horst, H., Postill, J., Hjorth, L., Lewis, T., & Tacchi, J. (2016b). Digital ethnography: Principles and practice. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  35. Plowman, L., & Stevenson, O. (2012). Using mobile phone diaries to explore children’s everyday lives. Childhood: A Global Journal of Child Research, 19(4), 539–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Spyrou, S. (2017). Time to decenter childhood? Childhood, 24(4), 433–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Storm-Mathisen, A. (2016). Grasping children’s media practices—theoretical and methodological challenges. Journal of Children and Media, 10(1), 81–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. van Dijck, J. (2014). Datafication, dataism and dataveillance: Big data between scientific paradigm and ideology. Surveillance and Society, 12(2), 197–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zuboff, S. (2015). Big other: Surveillance capitalism and the prospects of an information civilization. Journal of Information Technology, 30(1), 75–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of CommunicationCatholic University of the Sacred HeartMilanItaly
  2. 2.School of Arts and HumanitiesEdith Cowan UniversityMt LawleyAustralia

Personalised recommendations