“Just Me and Daddy”

  • Byron Richard
Part of the Social Indicators Research Series book series (SINS, volume 73)


This chapter presents a qualitative study of fathers and their young sons who participated in a co-created dance class. Fourteen participants from six family groups (ages five to more than 45), including the author, met together on seven Saturdays in a small community north of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The chapter documents the communicative moments through which members expressed their shifting dance interests and responses to form, over time, an “aesthetic community” (after Karen Bond), characterized by shared meanings and a group style. Sources of qualitative data include video documentation, pictorial evidence and participant interviews. I examine the experiences of two families in detail, showing how a person-centered dance program influenced their quality of individual and family life. I also consider the study’s implications for the value of reflective teaching practice in emergent dance curriculum design.


Fathers and sons dancing Emergent curriculum Gender Intersubjectivity Aesthetic community Family dance education Reflective teaching practice 


  1. Anttila, E. (2007). Children as agents in dance: Implications of the notion of child-culture for research and practice in dance education. In L. Bresler (Ed.), International handbook of research in arts education (pp. 865–879). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bohm, D., & Peat, F. D. (1987). Science, order and creativity. New York: Bantam Books.Google Scholar
  3. Bond, K. (2008). The human nature of dance: Towards a theory of aesthetic community. In S. Malloch & C. Trevarthen (Eds.), Communicative musicality: Exploring the basis of human companionship (pp. 401–422). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bond, K. (2018). “Me … a tree”: Young children as natural phenomenologists. In S. Fraleigh (Ed.), Back to the dance itself: Phenomenologies of the body in performance (pp. 205–232). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bond, K. E. (1994a). How ‘Wild Things’ tamed gender distinctions. Journal of Physical Education, Recreation and Dance, 65(2), 28–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bond, K. E. (1994b). Personal style as a mediator of engagement in dance: Watching Terpsichore rise. Dance Research Journal, 26(1), 15–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bond, K. E. (2000). Revisioning purpose: Children, dance and the culture of caring. In J. E. LeDrew & H. Ritenburg (Eds.), 8th dance and the child international (daCi) conference: Extensions & extremities: Points of departure (pp. 3–14). Regina, SK: University of Regina.Google Scholar
  8. Bond, K. E. (2001). “I’m not an eagle, I’m a chicken!” Young children’s perceptions of creative dance. Early Childhood Connections, 7(4), 41–51.Google Scholar
  9. Bond, K. E. (2017). “Boys are morons!” “Girls are gross!” Let’s dance! In W. Oliver & D. Risner (Eds.), Dance and gender: An evidence based approach (pp. 135–157). Gainesville: University Press of Florida.Google Scholar
  10. Bond, K. E., & Deans, J. (1997). Eagles, reptiles and beyond: A co-creative journey in dance. Childhood Education, 73(6), 366–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bond, K. E., & Richard, B. (2005). “Ladies and gentlemen: What do you see? What do you feel?” A story of connected curriculum in a third grade dance education setting. In L. Overby & B. Lepczyk (Eds.), Dance: Current selected research (Vol. 5, pp. 85–134). New York: AMS.Google Scholar
  12. Bond, K. E., & Stinson, S. W. (2000/2001). “I feel like I’m going to take off!” Young people’s experiences of the superordinary in dance. Dance Research Journal, 32(2), 52–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bond, K. E., & Stinson, S. W. (2016). “It’s work, work, work, work.” Young people’s experiences of effort and engagement in dance. In S. W. Stinson (Ed.), Embodied curriculum theory and research in arts education: A dance scholar’s search for meaning (pp. 269–295). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. (Original work published 2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carr, W., & Kemmis, S. (1986). Becoming critical: Education, knowledge, and action research. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  15. Clandinin, J., & Connelly, F. M. (1991). Narrative and story in practice and research. In D. Schön (Ed.), The reflective turn: Case studies in and on educational practice (pp. 258–281). New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  16. Clandinin, J., & Connelly, F. M. (1995). Teachers’ professional knowledge landscapes. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  17. Denzin, N. K. (1998). The landscape of qualitative research: Theories and issues. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.). (2005). The SAGE handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Freeman, M. (2015). Beholding and being beheld: Simone Weil, Iris Murdoch, and the ethics of attention. The Humanistic Psychologist, 43, 160–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Giorgi, A. (1992). Description versus interpretation: Competing alternative strategies for qualitative research. Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 23(2), 119–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Goodman, N. (1978). Ways of worldmaking. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
  22. Hanna, J. L. (1986). Interethnic communication in children’s own dance, play, and protest. In Y. Y. Kim (Ed.), Interethnic communication, International and intercultural communication annual (Vol. 10, pp. 176–198). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  23. Laban, R. (1988). The mastery of movement. Plymouth, UK: Northcote House.Google Scholar
  24. Langeveld, M. (1987). What is the meaning of being and having a father? Phenomenology and Pedagogy, 5, 5–21.Google Scholar
  25. Laverty, K. (2007). Dance/movement therapy as part of a multi-family group program at the Children’s Hospital of Denver. American Journal of Dance Therapy, 29(1), 9–35.Google Scholar
  26. Lindqvist, G. (2001). The relationship between dance and play.Research in Dance Education, 2(1), 41–52.Google Scholar
  27. Maletic, V. (1982). On the aisthetic and aesthetic dimensions of the dance: A methodology for researching dance style (doctoral dissertation). Columbus, OH: The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  28. Marcel, G. (1978). Homoviator. Gloucester, MA: Smith.Google Scholar
  29. Meltzoff, A. N., & Brooks, R. (2007). Intersubjectivity before language: Three windows on preverbal sharing. In S. Bråten (Ed.), On being moved: From mirror neurons to empathy (pp. 149–174). Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mouritsen, F. (1998). Child culture – Play culture. Working paper 2, Child and youth culture, The Department of Contemporary Cultural Studies, Odense University, Odense, Denmark.Google Scholar
  31. National Dance Education Organization (NDEO). (2004). Statistics on dance education in the United States. Retrieved from
  32. Oliver, W., & Risner, D. (Eds.). (2017). Dance and gender: An evidence based approach. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.Google Scholar
  33. Pallaro, P. (Ed.). (1999). Authentic movement: Essays by Mary Starks Whitehouse, Janet Adler, and Joan Chodorow (Vol. 1). Philadelphia, PA: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
  34. Parsad, B., & Spiegelman, M. (2012). Arts education in public elementary and secondary schools, 1999–2000 and 2009–10. (NCES 2012-014). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences. Department of Education, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  35. Reeves, R., & Sawhill, I. V. (2015, November 15). Men’s lib! The New York Times, p. SR1.Google Scholar
  36. Risner, D. (2008). When boys dance: Cultural resistance in dance education. In S. Shapiro (Ed.), Dance in a world of change: Examining globalization and cultural differences (pp. 93–115). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.Google Scholar
  37. Risner, D. (2009). What we know about boys who dance: The limitations of contemporary masculinity and dance education. In A. Shay & J. Fisher (Eds.), When men dance: Choreographing masculinities across borders (pp. 57–77). New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Schön, D. A. (1991). The reflective turn: Case studies in and on educational practice. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  39. Smith, M. W., & Wilhelm, J. D. (2002). “Reading don’t fix no Chevys”: Literacy in the lives of young men. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  40. Sparshott, F. (1988). Off the ground: First steps towards a philosophical consideration of dance. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  41. United States Department of Education. (2013). Table 318.30. Bachelor’s, master’s, and doctor’s degrees conferred by postsecondary institutions, by sex of student and discipline division: 2011–12. Retrieved from
  42. van Manen, M. (1991). The tact of teaching: The meaning of pedagogical thoughtfulness. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  43. van Manen, M. (1997). Researching lived experience: Human science for an action sensitive pedagogy (2nd ed.). London, ONT: Althuss.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Byron Richard
    • 1
  1. 1.Independent ScholarMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations