Keywords

1 Introduction

The aim of this chapter is to discuss the dialectical interplay of a digital methodology and a cultural-historical theoretical perspective to support researchers to generate data within the dynamics of a living laboratory of a preschool setting in order to create new understandings of inclusion within everyday practices. We begin this chapter with a model developed from research (Johora, 2020), followed by examples of data to illustrate five key principles of researching inclusion within play-based settings. We conclude the chapter by drawing together the five principles of a digital methodology for capturing how participant children created roundabout ways for their inclusion in the preschool practices.

2 Crises in Capturing Children’s Perspective

Research to capture pre-schoolers’ perspective, crises they experience and their contribution to their own development through everyday participation in different settings is challenging. Traditional methods like interview and questionnaire are not suitable to researching children’s perspective. Traditional observation is a child-friendly research method, but it is difficult to translate children's actions into detailed text. The first author used traditional observation method in some of her studies and experiences the following crises:

  • Simultaneously paying attention to the live interactions in a setting and note taking

  • Carrying data in memory and translate those into the observation notes

  • Overwhelming exercise in going back and forth through text

Therefore, she felt that much of the real interactions in a setting was dropped in the process of data collection and during analysis she found many nuances were missing. Moreover, as an inclusive education researcher, the first author was struggling to find and use appropriate theoretical tools in her studies. Such methodological and theoretical crisis the researcher felt about her knowledge and practices inspired her to explore further as Fragkiadaki et al. mentioned in Chap. 7 that crises are turning point for many researchers to develop or reshaping their “researcher identity and personality”. Next, we will discuss how we found the digital video observation method most relevant in capturing children’s’ perspective- especially who are young and vulnerable; in Chap. 8, O’connor et al. discussed in detail about the challenges in researching with very young children.

Analysis of children’s drawings and photos may give some ideas of their choice, motive, and preferences, but those methods are also limited because those cannot capture children’s actions in motion and thereby connecting the puzzle pieces into the broad context or social situation in which actions are taking places becomes challenging. However, connecting the data to the context is a sophisticated act of interpretation. Therefore, digital observation or video recordings have been found beneficial for capturing children’s actions in motion. Because of technological advances, it is now possible for researchers to capture the children’s actions, interactions, expressions within particular situational contexts and later revisit these lived actions during data analysis. Consequently, many researchers prefer digital video methodology while they research lived experiences, and when researchers are dynamically involved with young children in the research context of a living laboratory. In the model that follows (Fig. 11.1), we will discuss how the digital video methodology along with the cultural-historical theoretical perspective helped us to capture children’s perspective in motion and to analyse the data to answer research questions. A series of research principles are presented.

Fig. 11.1
A cyclic chart for the dialectical relation between theory and methodology. The theoretical perspective with data interpretation as the theoretical tool points to the methodology with data collection as the method digital tool.

The dialectical relations between theory and methodology in researching and knowledge generation

Full size image

2.1 Principle 1—Beyond the Technical Capture (Hardware to Software)

The way news reporters use digital video recorder for their filming differs from the researcher because the aim of recording or underlined professional practice and perspectives are different. Similarly, although many researchers are using the digital tools to collect data, the use of digital tools varies based on their research perspective. The digital tools (e.g., video camera, Go pro) can be seen as hardware and the theoretical perspective and methodology can be seen as software, which guide the operation of the digital tools in the process of data collection and analysis. The dialectical relation between the theoretical perspective and methodology guide researchers in finding appropriate tools or methods for data collection and analysis and thereby influence the research outcomes (see Fig. 11.1). Researchers choose their method based on their theoretical perspective and then design their study and select appropriate method/s to collect data, following the methodology or theorised stance on the selected method. After collecting and organising data, researchers again need theoretical tools to analyse the data. Thus, through a complex process, the researchers reach their findings and that contribute to what is known about the area, but also they can contribute to theory. Therefore, the methodology and the respective method a researcher chooses has impact on their findings and there by influence theory development. Vygotsky (1997) mentioned that an appropriate methodology is an essential prerequisite for research and at the same time it is result of its application. Figure 11.1 shows the relationship between theory, methodology, methods, and findings.

2.2 Principle 2: The Whole Rather Than a Fraction

Vygotsky (1993) criticised the existing psychological theories and experiments to understand children with disabilities and attempted to develop a new understanding of a special pedagogy. Not only did he create a new understanding about special pedagogy, but he pointed out the existing methodological crisis when researching the development of children with disabilities. In this endeavour, Vygotsky simultaneously researched basic developmental issues of children with disabilities and all other children to get the results (Knox & Stevens, 1993). “Many scholars have pointed out that Vygotsky’s approach to psychology was above all methodological” (Knox & Stevens, 1993, p. 11). Vygotsky tried to bridge the gap between psychological scholarship and everyday reality through his research. His emphasis was to analyse the child development as a whole, rather than a fraction (Vygotsky, 1993). Following Vygotsky’s legacy, Hedegaard (2012, 2019) developed a model of researching children in a wholeness approach.

As discussed above, the theory also guided us in our selection of a cultural-historical methodology for theorising new approaches not available in Vygotsky’s time. We used cultural-historical theory to inform our approach of a visual observation method using digital tools. The theory also guided us in how to use the tools in the data collection process. We also drew upon contemporary data organization and interpretation techniques. For our study, methodologically we followed Hedegaard’s (2008) three layers of interpretation, and we used Vygotsky’s theoretical system of concepts, notably those in Volume 2 of his collected works (Vygotsky, 1993) to understand children’s participation in a mainstream preschool setting as a whole.

After data collection, the raw digital data were organised in digital files and folders, and a video log was created to describe the data files. In the first layer of analysis, common sense interpretation (Hedegaard, 2008), raw data were summarised as it can be seen in the column 3 & 4 in the Table 11.1. In the second layer, situated practice interpretation (Hedegaard, 2008), we looked for the basic categories have been arisen from the common sense interpretation throughout the data set to understand the preschool practice. For example, the Table 11.1 presented the wholistic scenario of the communication between the focus child and the preschool practices. In the third layer, thematic interpretation (Hedegaard, 2008), we used system of theoretical concepts to analyse relationships between categories in context to answer research questions in a wholistic way (see principle five, Fig. 11.3).

Table 11.1 Participation of Maliha, a unity of the child and preschool practice (Johora et al., 2021, p. 1265)
Full size table

2.3 Principle 3: Beyond the Clinical Setting and into the Living Laboratory

The first author found in different studies (Ahsan et al., 2013; Johora, 2012; Johora & Ahsan, 2015) that mainstream teachers and educators has many concerns about the inclusion of children with disabilities. Most importantly, they reported their lack of knowledge and skills to address special needs of children with disabilities. Similar findings are also common in different geographical locations (Agbenyega & Klibthong, 2014; Majoko, 2016). The first author also found that within this challenging context some children with disabilities were progressing well in mainstream settings and some were struggling (Johora, 2006). Therefore, she aimed to explore how children with disabilities are participating in mainstream preschool settings and collaborated with second and third authors. The first author was keen to use the digital video methodology as she chose cultural-historical theoretical perspective to explore the central phenomena. Moreover, her previous research experience was limited to using interview, questionnaires, focus group discussion and classroom observation with checklist and she found limitations of those methods to capture the interactions in detail. Through her collaboration with her co-researchers, she designed her research to go beyond the clinical setting using traditional techniques, and to capture inclusion in action within a living laboratory of a preschool setting.

Even in contemporary studies, researchers capture the actions of children with disabilities, and many use digital tools to film children’s activities in a clinical setting or in a segregated setting (e.g., to withdraw children from their regular group), rather than understand children’s actions in the regular settings of their life. Moreover, how a researcher enters into the setting, where the child participates and how they target the actions and activity settings, varies based on the researcher’s theoretical orientation. For example, as a cultural-historical researcher, we enter into the setting with a cultural-historical conception of children’s development and the importance of social interactions in their development. A cultural-historical conception of child development guided us as researchers as we examined the possibilities of participation by children with disabilities, and we were also alert to the secondary disabilities they may experience in the participating contexts.

For instance, in our study, we examined the participation of a child with Soto’s syndrome (Pseudonym: Maliha, 4-years old) in an Australian mainstream long day care preschool setting. The first author and a research assistant followed the child with a handheld camera in different activity settings. The data showed the child’s speech was not clear and both the child and educators experienced communication difficulties. The educators’ challenge was with understanding the child’s intentions. However, our theoretical and methodological positions helped us to unpack the interplay between the child’s different bio-psychological structure and the social consequences or secondary disability in the long day care preschool setting. We were able to map the child’s roundabout way of participation and the way the educators created support within the preschool practice.

How we moved from digital to text-based analysis, can be seen in the example of a vignette taken from the overall study (Johora et al., 2021, pp. 1262–1263)

Vignette: Last night, Maliha went to enjoy theatre show Lion King. She wanted to share this with the researcher but the researcher could not understand. Then, Maliha chose to approach the educator, Amanda. Here is the brief description of how the communication went. The time is according to the movie file.

22:20:

Maliha:

This is so much fun …[She added something more, but the researcher could not understand], my sister… [She was jumping in joy] …a dad die [bending body she was playing the role of ‘die’]

Researcher:

Who die[s]?

Maliha:

Son of lioking [Lionking]…pay ticket… [she clapped]

Researcher:

Oh tickets…! [The researcher could not understand]

23:26:

Maliha approached Amanda to tell her story

 

Amanda:

Let me change my jacket…

[Maliha was waiting for Amanda at the door]

26:40:

Amanda sits down to listen to Maliha

 

26:57:

Amanda gave attention to other children riding on a bike. Maliha was following Amanda

 

27:55:

Maliha, patting on Amanda’s hand, said ‘Awa awa awa’ but another child wanted help from Amanda to tie his shoelace.

 

28:18:

Maliha again touched Amanda but another child comes to complain. Amanda had to chase the child as the child was chasing his peer. Maliha was following her.

 

However, Amanda was distracted from the conversation as she was gradually being involved in ensuring no fighting, discussion with other educators and, finally, riding on a tricycle.

35:37:

Maliha was stopping Amanda’s tricycle by widening her hands.

 

37:40:

Amanda apologises to Maliha for not giving attention to her.

 

38:30:

While Maliha was taking time to say something, another child tries to get Amanda’s attention. Amanda indicated the other child ‘ssh’

 

39:25:

The child could not wait anymore and distracted Amanda

 

40:50:

Amanda was listening to Maliha. Suddenly another child came in between them. Amanda said, ‘hang on ... Maliha was talking, honey’

 

41:10:

Amanda got the clue from Maliha’s phrase ‘lion king’

 

Amanda:

‘Was that real people or cartoon one?’

41:30:

Amanda was sharing Maliha’s experience excitedly with another educator and she informed Amanda that yesterday Maliha was picked up early. Finally, it helped educators and the researcher to understand that Maliha went to watch the Lion King (theatre version) last night.

 

We moved from the text to summarising the data in relation to the concepts guiding our research, where the unity of the child and context was central part of our theoretical stance - cultural-historical theory. Table 11.1 is an example of how the everyday preschool practices (Column 3) and the child’s participation (Columns 3 and 4) were documented in summary form as part of the analysis process. What is important to note, is how the child’s participation is a unity of the preschool practice and the child’s intentions (shown in the second column) in the activity settings (shown in first column) (See Johora et al., 2021).

2.4 Principle 4: Capturing the Dynamic Process Over Time

In line with Vygotsky’s research approach, we have observed both children with disabilities and children without disabilities to understand the inclusive participation of children with disabilities. Traditionally, researchers would prefer to observe children with disabilities only if the research aim is to explore the participation or development of children with disabilities. This holistic process enabled us to collect quality data and interpret those beyond a surface level and to capture development over time—as a dynamic whole process. In Fig. 11.2, we show an example of how the child’s development can be mapped over time to give a fuller account of the actions of the child in the preschool setting, where crisis points can be captured. Figure 11.2 is an example from the data set to showcase how the focus child overcame the communication difficulties and achieved the communication goal creating a roundabout or alternative way (Vygotsky, 1993) in the mainstream preschool practices.

Fig. 11.2
A line indicating Maliha’s roundabout ways to reach the goal has relatively stable moments till 22, followed by a moment of sharing at 24 meters, a distraction boulder at 26 meters, a moment of sharing at 28 meters, distraction boulder at 38 meters, a moment of sharing at 39 meters, distraction boulder at 40 meters, moment of sharing at 42 meters, and R S M.

Maliha’s roundabout ways to reach the goal of verbal communication: A dynamic process over time (Johora et al., 2021, p. 1264)

Full size image

The link between the vignette presented above, summarised as a synthesis between person and environment in Table 11.1, and then mapped over time is shown in Fig. 11.2. These processes as guiding principles are key dimensions of interpreting data from a cultural-historical perspective.

2.5 Principle 5: The Final Theorised Model Is Located Within the Literature and Research Paradigm of the Field

The results of research are also analysed in relation to the literature and the dominant models available to the researchers. Cultural-historical theory gives alternative ways of interpreting and theorising the results. Figure 11.3 is an example from the first author’s overall study which took forward four separate cases (using the process described above) to bring forward new understandings. But the model shown in Fig. 11.3 did not just happen. It emerged from a synthesis of what was known from the existing research paradigm and the incongruence that was observed through the cultural-historical study of the first author (Johora, 2020).

Fig. 11.3
A Venn diagram for the cultural-historical model has a super set for social culture with two overlapping subsets for preschool practice and individual children. The social interactions in the overlapped area are incongruences, S S D, and crisis.

Cultural-historical model for enabling inclusion (Johora, 2020, p. 246)

Full size image

For instance, the biomedical model still has its influence in special and inclusive education for children with disabilities (Bøttcher, 2012). The biomedical model explains disability as the individual’s problem and focuses on the difficulties an individual with disabilities experiences rather than their strengths. The social model of disability challenged this notion of medical model and argued that the difficulties persons with disabilities experience are created by the social situations or practices and removing these barriers are crucial to ensure participations of persons with disabilities. The implication of social model helped us to consider in our research how the child/educators reduced the barriers in the preschool practices and to understand what better practices for access to services for persons with disabilities might be (Oliver, 2013). However, the social model also has limitations as it does not have theoretical tools to explain disability and development. Therefore, we choose cultural-historical theory for our study. Cultural-historical theory focuses on children’s development and education in relation to children’s participation in different social settings. Vygotsky’s cultural-historical theory also explained about disability, development and inclusion of children. Vygotsky (1993) mentioned about two aspects of disabilities—primary or biological aspects of disabilities and secondary or social consequences of biological disabilities.

Vygotsky (1993) argued that the basic law of development for both children with disabilities and children without disabilities are same but children with disabilities may need an alternative way or by-pass to reach the same developmental goal/s. For an example, Vygotsky (1993) mentioned that a child with visual impairment may read an alternative braille text, but the basic law of reading skills development is same for both the children with visual impairment and children with vision. Vygotsky’s cultural-historical theory guided us to understand the interplay of biological and the social aspect of disability and development. Furthermore, it also provided us the theoretical tools (e.g., secondary disability, roundabout way or alternative way of development, motive and demand) for data analysis.

Figure 11.3 shows how the results and their implications can be further theorised into a structural model that pushes against the existing models of inclusion. The Fig. 11.3 highlighted the dialectical interplay between the child and the preschool practices and the resulted crisis or opportunities for the child and how the child could be supported. For example, the focus child, Maliha, experienced incongruences because of unique psychological structure and the demand of using commonly used verbal communication tool in the preschool. In this case, alternative or roundabout ways could be created to support the child (e.g., speech therapy to master the commonly used verbal communication tool or sign language as alternative cultural tool).

3 Conclusion

In this chapter, we showed how in the context of inclusion, researchers can analyse data. Five principles were presented and shown through examples of data. They were:

  • Principle 1: Beyond the technical capture (Hardware to software)

  • Principle 2: The whole rather than a fraction

  • Principle 3: Beyond the clinical setting and into the living laboratory

  • Principle 4: Capturing the dynamic process over time

  • Principle 5: The final theorised model is located within the literature and research paradigm of the field

When these five analysis principles are taken together within the relational model shown in Fig. 11.1, we can argue that both the digital methodology and cultural-historical analytical tools make it possible to develop new understanding of inclusion and to understand how participant children created roundabout ways for their inclusion in the preschool practices. The model and the principles work together as a dynamic whole, and bring forward for the researcher, a value framework for analysing data generated through the methodology and method of cultural-historical theory in contemporary times.