Keywords

1 Introduction

This chapter is based on a research project on the integration of Internet of Toys (IoToys) at home and in early childhood education (ECE) settings in three countries: England, Norway, and Australia. Aspects of the findings of this research have been reported previously in Kewalramani et al. (2020a, b, 2021a, b, c, 2023), Palaiologou et al. (2021).

The research employed qualitative methodology and focused mainly on visual methods, as will be explained below. The chapter has four sections. The first section explains the context of the research and the methods. The second discusses our theoretical conceptualisation and explains the synergy between sociocultural theory, cognition, and social ecology. The third section explains how we analysed our visual data. Finally, this chapter reflects upon the visual methodologies we used to discuss the benefits of using such an approach, as well as the challenges to conclude that when analysing digital data researchers should seek for signs, schemes, symbols and ethical “micro-moments”.

2 The Context of the Research

This research project started in 2018 and was completed in 2021. It employed qualitative methodology to examine how children are using IoToys at home and in ECE settings and to explore to what extent and how they can be integrated in pedagogy in England, Norway, and Australia. As IoToys are relatively new technological developments, it is important here to define them. These are tangible, physical toys connected with the internet which have intended pre-programme functions and represent either anthropomorphised characters or real/imaginary animals. Children can control these devices which offer opportunities for programming the interface to create interactive projects and actions involving children’s communication and expression (Palaiologou et al., 2021; Kewalramani et al., 2023).

As mentioned earlier, our research methods deployed visual methodologies. Visual researchers in the social sciences are using tools such as videos, photographs, drawings as modes of inquiry “modes of representation and modes of dissemination” (Mitchell, 2011, p. xi). Visual research is producing immediate visual text or, as Fiske (1991) has described, primary text. However, central to this is a need to interpret and analyse the images which does not come without its challenges.

In our research, we used multi methods to collect data. The main methods were participant and non-participant observations, collection of videos with children’s activities, photographs and photovoice videos that parents and ECE educators were sending us that they thought would be of interest in our research. It is important to say here that we did not aim to have cross-cultural research, thus the methods of data collection varied among our countries. The focus of our research was to understand how children interact with haptic (involving sound, digital touch, movement) technology at home and in ECE settings, and how this technology can be integrated to enhance children’s development and learning. The analysis of data subsequently followed a commonly agreed protocol and was derived from our theoretical lenses.

At this point, we have to explain that our project was affected by the outbreak of the COVID-19 crisis as data collection was suspended. In England and Norway data collection stopped in March 2020 but in Australia data collection continued via Zoom. In England parents carried on sending short videos of their children in the first phase of the lockdowns (March 2020–June 2020), however after a while and with the continuing nature of this crisis, they stopped and it was impossible to resume data collection after the lockdowns (the national lockdown finished 19th July 2021). In Norway, during COVID-19 the structure of dividing groups changed, and the groups of children wit one educator became smaller (with one educator for a group of 4–5 children while previously 3 educators for 18 children). This temporary form/structure did not offer opportunities for data collection as this would have added an extra demand on the educators. In Australia, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the data collection pivoted to remote data collection methods. These involved data via children’s live zoom-based play and conversations with the researcher where the adult was the ‘silent partner’ during the live play session (occurred once a week staggered around totalling 10 weeks in 2020–2021). In negotiation with the educators and parents, observations at home and in EC settings were gathered, but the nature of the observations varied across contexts. Parents and educators submitted multimedia (through a private WhatsApp group) messages (pictures, videos, short written reflections from parents) of children’s play in the home. For the EC settings, the researcher provided remotely recorded stories involving empathy-based scenarios involving the robot or the digital game characters that were used as inquiry starters for the by the educators in their own EC setting. Hence the data also involved a combination of narrative observations from the researcher and self-submitted video.

As discussed elsewhere in the book, the pandemic brought dramatic changes in our everyday life affecting directly educational research with children at all levels and, across the world. There was a rapid move to use online tools and, in our research, we needed to develop online practices relying as ethically possible on visual data only. In a crisis individuals or group of people are impacted physically, emotionally, socially, cognitively, spiritually as it brings a disequilibrium to the normal daily routines (Male et al., 2024). In line with the ideology of the book that crisis offers opportunities for developing other possible ways and tools, for our project it offered the opportunity to utilise digital methods and examine in depth ways of not only collecting data but analysing these digital data with multimodal lenses as it will be discussed later.

3 Theoretical Conceptualisation: Vygotsky and Piaget: Beyond Dichotomies Seeking for Harmonies

In line with the aims of this book, we view play as a complex construct that can be studied by many disciplines such as psychology, sociology, anthropology. Equally trying to capture and analyse children’s lived experiences in research comes with complexities especially when digital data tries to document and interpret these experiences. As will be explained below, in order to understand these complexities, our theorisation is seeking to harmonise the psychological dimensions of play within children’s social and cultural contexts. Thus, as our aim was to examine children’s play in the digital age, with emphasis on IoToys, our theoretical conceptualisation is based on synergy between psychological theories and social ecological theories of play.

Building on previous work from our research (Palaiologou et al., 2021), we developed synergistic lenses between the work of Vygotsky (1978) and Piaget (1977). Although we do not ignore the differences between Piaget and Vygotsky, we aligned with the work of Glassman (1994) who argued “that whilst Piagetian and Vygotskian psychology might have epistemological tensions due to different ideas, actually these differences are the key to help us to understand child cognitive development” (Palaiologou et al., 2021). In that sense we argue that both are examining the internal psychological functions (e.g., the role of thought, attention, object representation, imagination, symbolism) that leads to play. Both view that intellectual development occurs as a sequence of hierarchical levels. Piaget in his own words explains: “we do in fact find, in the analysis of forms of social equilibrium, these same three structures […] [just as the] cognitive mechanisms in children involve three distinct systems” (Piaget, 1995, pp. 56, 279). Similarly, Vygotsky (1994, p. 216) suggests “Development consists in three intrinsic stages”. Nevertheless, both acknowledged that “The stages of development are far from being just the manifestation of internal organic maturation” (Piaget, 1995, p.296).

We must, therefore, distinguish the main lines in the development of the child’s behaviour. First, there is the line of natural development which is closely bound up with the process of general organic growth and maturation (Vygotsky, 1994, p.57).

Despite his critics, Piaget (1971, p.155; 1986, p. 312) explicitly noted the open nature of development of knowledge. Moreover, despite the dominant ideas in the English-speaking literature that the Piagetian work ignored the social and cultural variables of development, both endorsed these:

Human intelligence is subject to the action of social life at all levels of development from the first to the last day of life. (Piaget, 1995, p. 278)

The entire history of the child’s psychological development shows us that, from the very first days of development, its adaptation to the environment is achieved by social means (Vygotsky, 1994, p. 116).

In Vygotsky’s work it is obvious that his ideas moved from social to cultural dimensions of development. Equally Piaget (1995, pp. 41–47) showed a commitment with due attention to social relationships and the cultural availability of knowledge and values (Piaget, 1955).

Thus, in our work, we draw upon Vygotsky’s view that play and its influence on child development conveys accurately that the child learns to act in a mental, rather than an externally visible situation, relying “not on motives and incentives supplied by external things” (Vygotsky, 1966/2016). Thus, play is “the source of development” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 138) of “the most authentic, truest creativity” (Vygotsky, 1930/2004, p. 11); something that is instrumental in furthering children’s thinking and fostering the development of ideas that “bridges the gap between real events in the changing world and the imagination within one’s head” (Preissler, 2006, p. 233). Consequently, “we can view play from a holistic perspective that captures it as a genuinely social activity—which means not only an interactive activity but also a cultural and imaginative one” (Nikolopoulou, 1993, p. 13).

As Vygotsky (1976, 1978) has emphasised the importance of play in children’s development, we cannot ignore that play is “an internal mental function for children to explore their world and the objects around them defined by a set of broad terms encompassing motivational, cognitive, social and emotional aspects of behaviour and psychology” (Neale et al., 2017, p.4). Similarly, Piaget (1977, 1985) argued that as children develop through stages, they construct schemata (= “a cohesive, repeatable action sequence possessing component actions that are tightly interconnected and governed by a core meaning” (Piaget, 1952, p. 7) to make meaning of the world around them through their experiences and central to this was play.

Thus, in this research, we view play as “an accomplished union of mental functions and sociocultural world” (Palaiologou, 2017, p. 1262) that shapes children’s lives (e.g. Prout, 2010; Rogers, 2010) and is context specific and inseparable from the social world which drives the play experience (Brooker et al., 2014). In that sense, play cannot be examined in isolation from the developmental, social, cultural and ecological contexts of childhood, nor “be broken into parts for separate consideration” but needs to be seen as “moulded into one piece” (Alanen, 1988, p. 54). Therefore, in our research we examine children’s play in a way that attempts “to find a relationship to both children’s own activity [internal mental functions] and to the social processes which shape and constrain [or extend] children’s lives” (Prout & James, 1997, p. 30). In doing so we seek to create a synergy between the developmental approaches to play as mental function and the ecological views of the child as part of a “moulded” social digital landscape.

As children are part of multiple social landscapes, we cannot serve research effectively by decontextualising play. Thus, we draw upon social ecology theory (Bookchin, 1993, 1995a, 1995b) to understand what happens at an internal and social level when children are interacting with IoToys. Social ecology examines ecological phenomena within society that “require a way of thinking that recognises that ‘what-is’ as it seems to lie before our eyes is always developing into ‘what -it-is-not’, that is engaged in a continual self-organising process in which past and present, seen as a richly differentiated but shared continuum, give rise to a new potentiality for a future, ever richer degree of wholeness [original emphasis]” (Bookchin, 1993, p.5). It seeks to unify the study of natural (human development) and the social world “in a comprehensive theory that sees human beings and the natural world as potentially complementary, not antagonistic” (Best, 1998, p. 335). In that sense it goes beyond just studying phenomena within interface systems and is concerned with the holistic richness of them (Bookchin, 1995a). We position this project within social ecology as embedding a complementarity of psychological research and sociological research, creating synergy to examine “what -is” when children play with IoToys. We view social ecology as stressing the need for embodying complementarity between the internal (mental functions) and the social worlds that will give active meaning to the wholeness of play (digital and non-digital) across children’s social landscapes. Such a lens allows us to examine children’s play across digital and non-digital within the social and cultural context that this play takes place. Moreover, it helps to draw from the psychological dimensions of play as discussed by Vygotsky and Piaget to analyse the characteristics of play and within the social cultural lenses to locate this play in its social and cultural context. Thus, we built on this in order to offer us indicators and indications of how we can approach our digital data, as will be demonstrated below.

4 Data Analysis: Seeing the Unseen

In our research we sought to utilise a multimodal approach to analysis, emphasising the importance of using critical lenses that align with our theoretical conceptualisation. For example, a multimodal analytical approach allows researchers to consider multiple modes (speech, sound, text, digital touch, movement), wherein children’s play is transformative as children move back and forth within their physical and digital play spaces (Edwards, 2021).

As our project was multi-dimensional to answer each research question several analytical methods were used. Preliminarily we used thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2021, 2022). However, due to the nature of the research we also employed either an inductive or a deductive approach, based on our theoretical conceptualisation, so we could understand the psychological and social dimensions of children’s interactions with IoToys. In cases where we wanted to analyse explicitly the content of the play, we used semantic and latent approaches (see Palaiologou et al., 2021). As mentioned already, our data was mainly visual either in the form of videos or photovoice videos from parents and photographs.

Visual data does not come without its challenges. It does require interpretation, thus we had to find ways the ensure that we interpret the data faithfully and ethically. We built on Palaiologou’s (2019) suggestion that in order to analyse visual data we do need to set in advance indicators (coding) and indications (themes).

In line with our conceptualisation, we drew upon the psychological characterises of play as our indicators, these included:

  • Creation of imaginary situations with the use of objects (IoToys);

  • Use of objects to attribute/project properties to other artefacts;

  • Projecting imitation schemata onto other objects;

  • Transformation of the objects into symbolic actions;

  • Actions to represent something else rather than the intended functions of the objects;

  • Creation of rules;

  • Meaning-making;

  • Child takes the role of the other—imitation (see Palaiologou et al., 2021).

The second stage was to focus on indications that evolved around the physical, social, emotional, linguistic and cultural-environmental dimensions of play. The example below demonstrates the process of the data analysis.

Example of data and analytical process:

This is a 1:02 min photovoice video that the parents sent to us (English data). The parents did not put any narrative as they wanted to leave the researcher to hear the children’s dialogues, they just explained the context, that the boy who is older is helping his cousin who is younger to play with OSMO.

In this video (Fig. 10.1 presents screenshots of the video), we see that the older boy helps the younger girl and guides her using his fingers and language to help the girl to put the pieces in the right place. Sometimes he takes the piece and places it in the right place using language to explain what needs doing. The girl is showing attention and follows the instructions given to her by the boy. When the puzzle is completed, alongside the celebrating music from the OSMO, the boy claps his hands as an indication that he applauds her efforts and praises the girl for completing it. They both smile (see Fig. 10.2, Table 10.1).

Fig. 10.1
A collage of 2 photos captures two children playing with a puzzle followed by two videos of the children playing. They arrange the puzzle pieces by seeing a picture in front of them.

Two children play with OSMO

Full size image
Fig. 10.2
A collage of three photos captures the children in a good mood after the completion of arranging the puzzle pieces.

Both the children celebrate the completion of the puzzle

Full size image
Table 10.1 The data analysis process
Full size table

Reflecting our theoretical conceptualisation, we extended our interpretation to conclude that in this play episode we see a flow of play where through problem solving (where the pieces need to be used to create a house), negotiation, social interaction between the two children, the boy supported the young girl as most experienced peer (zone of proximal development) to construct a new schema to understand the environmental culture of this particular play (OSMO and its rules) which enables the girl to feel achievement (completion of the puzzle), control (changed the image of the puzzle), develops sense of self -esteem and worth (the boy applauded her and she had a big smile at the end). Our analysis was communicated with the family, so the family could engage with our analytical protocol and, most importantly, to ensure that our narrative of the video relates to their narrative. Thus, following member checking process (Ary et al., 2010), to ensure truthfulness of our interpretation.

5 Discussion: The Case for “Micro-ethical” Moments in Visual Research

As can be seen from the above example, analysing visual data requires the development of strategies that are not different from written data. However, the visual data offers rich data as it captures embodied language that written text cannot always capture. It also offers researchers the “wholeness” of the context as it does not ignore the social/cultural aspects of the environment and the social-emotional interactions that occur within it. Nevertheless, visual data needs to be treated with caution as images do not always tell us/ represent the reality because in research “the invisible matters” (Wyly, 2010, p. 499). As visual methodologies are complex because the lived experiences of children cannot only be represented only by images, Wyly (2010, pp. 505–507) suggest three conditions:

  1. 1.

    Conditions of possibility (seeking for the unseen thus visually unknown contexts of the image and image taking process);

  2. 2.

    Displacement (an image might be removed from its contextual history);

  3. 3.

    Power of representation (who chooses and is in control of the images).

Thus, we conclude when visual methodologies are used in research with children, the methodology needs to be considered differently, compared to other methodologies. We propose that researchers using visual methodologies need to be guided by the cultural context of the research focus, its historicity and show sensitivity to it. We propose that in the visual research landscapes in early childhood (but and beyond), the focus should be on these sensitivities and these to be considered as micro-ethical moments, where researchers’ judgements are attuned to cultural historical landscapes of children’ s lives. It should be acknowledged that in any interpretation of digital data, no matter how rich and insightful can be, these moments of children’s lives may go unrecognised. Thus, researchers in the digital analysis stage should be intuitive to recognise the micro-ethical moments that emerge.

Core to visual research are the ethical considerations, especially when it comes to anonymity and confidentiality. As children’s images are represented in visual data, researchers when disseminate findings tend to “anonymise” the images of children with covering or blurring their faces. However, this raises the questions as to what extent children want to be anonymised in this way. Anonymised images, instead of eliciting children’s voices, can dehumanise children. As visual data is rich linguistically, physically, socially and emotionally, in anonymising images we run the risk to make the data silent, manipulates the data (e.g., displacement) so it speaks to an audience distant from the children and in some cases, it can lead to unrecognisable and meaningless data as in the examples below:

Similar challenges can be raised regarding confidentiality as in our attempt to align with it we run the risk of depersonalising the lived experiences of young children, rather than capturing them. There are cases where the ethical positioning, protocols, and the ethics of care of the researcher are against the participants’ wishes, the contextual features of the data and children’s empowerment in the research as the example below illustrates (Fig. 10.3).

Fig. 10.3
A collage of three photos captures the children playing a skit, with one wearing a crown on the left. In the center, two kids fight with swords with their masks on. The blurred photo on the right also captures two kids fighting with swords.

Anonymity vs dehumanization

Full size image

In the above example with the boy and the girl once the case study was written for dissemination purposes and we showed the family and the children how we had interpreted the photovoice video. The parents were happy, but the boy asked why we did not use his real name and he did not like how his face was covered. We explained the reasons however, the boy insisted to use his real name and not cover his face as he stated, “I am proud that I helped my cousin and I want everyone to know”. It can be seen these created tensions between our ethical protocol, but then if we had not respected that child’s wishes it would place a question on the participatory nature of our research as well as children’s agency.

Such tensions create challenges at philosophical and practical level. At the philosophical level visual research with young children can result in “silent” ethical conduct, regulated by a self-interest in the investigation. This sums up researchers’ duties and obligations to avoid pursuing an axiomatic argumentation of the ethical terrain of visual research. At a practical level, ethical choices depend on individual’s morality and ideology (such as children’s participation as a frame of reference) and intuitional morality (such as regulations, ethical codes and committees) as well as legal requirements. Thus, we argue that visual research with children should place emphasis on “micro-ethical” moments: i.e. child in context (procedural ethics vs situated ethics) and their voices and choices heard and acknowledged.

Consequently, in reflecting on our theoretical conceptualisation that aimed to synergise psychological and philosophical theories, we propose the following reflective lenses when visual research with young children is considered:

  • Each visual researcher should reflect on the adopted actions of pursuing their own research investigation that on the surface appear ethical as a ‘betterment’ way of children’s involvement (rational egoism = it is rational to act in children’s interest);

  • In striving to act ethically, the issue of consent, anonymity and confidentiality should take a pragmatic approach, rather than epistemic one, that does not ignore the array of issues that shape axiomatic ethical dilemmas on visual research with young children (psychological egoism = researchers can only act in their self-interest);

  • Each visual research should seek to match ethical criteria set by institutional regulatory bodies and committees with the axiomatic ethical challenges emerging from visual research that does not always sit comfortably with institutional ethical protocols (ethical egoism = researchers ought to act in a way that will benefit the children)

6 Conclusions

To conclude, visual research with young children has reached an important point where the legal and institutional requirements for informed consent, anonymity and confidentiality are determining decisions about ethics. In line with cultural-historical theory, we propose that the ethical terrain of visual research ought to be determined by invariable different principles that are depending on context and situational actions. Informed consent in visual research should be constantly negotiated for each visual depiction with the children if we are to represent children’s lives in research.

Axiomatically, it is paradoxical to assure anonymity and confidentiality in visual depictions. Instead, visual research should be accommodated in a context specific visual ethic, moving away from the pragmatic margins of institutional ethical protocols of what is “good” practice (ethical egoism). We propose that ethical visual research should be context specific and should be managed and regulated by reference to reasons appropriate to that context. It should be concerned with an axiomatic understanding of what it is required conducting ethically sound visual research with young children. Finally, this has implications for institutional ethical protocols as they should be negotiated in participatory ways so they can be flexible to focus on micro-ethical moments that lead to ethical decision making and reflect the epistemic positions and axiomatic challenges of visual research with children. To put it simply, in visual research we should publicly debate ethical anxieties and dilemmas and not be haunted by them.