Dialectical Pathways in Digital Data Analysis

Abstract

In recent times of crisis, contradictions, and drama researchers stood in front of a labyrinth of multiple methodological choices and imponderable research paths and directions. In many cases, this new reality created the opportunity for the researchers to think in novel and innovative ways by involving in a critical, dialectical, and open-ended “dialogue” with their data and the analytical processes. Part II brings together four indicative examples of research labyrinths and the new methodological frameworks the researchers invented to step their way out of them. It is argued that dialectics and dialectical thinking opened new spaces for reflection and allowed new dimensions of digital analysis to emerge. Through the Chapters of the Section, it is shown how researchers developed their creative imagination by focusing on new units of analysis and uses of digital means, how they strengthened their methodological agency by inventing new methods, and how they developed their personalities as researchers through new motives and values. This complex and unique in each case process is discussed in this Chapter as a socially and culturally oriented process in motion.

1 Introduction

The crisis can be examined as a multidirectional labyrinth, a complex branching puzzle with multiple choices of paths and directions. Labyrinth is not only the place where we get lost but mainly the journey to discover ourselves and become aware of the complexity of the world and its various potentialities. By developing creative, mediating activity, people explore the labyrinth and invent cultural means that allow them to get out of it (Dafermos, 2022, p. 9).

The pandemic and the various and diverse crises the pandemic generated and/or brought to the surface changed the trajectories of several research projects and, in many cases, the routines of our research lives in academia. Interrupted communications with participants in the studies, limitations of time and space in the field, new forms of presence and physicality of participation affected the type, the amount, and, in some cases, the qualities of empirical data collected and generated in the research field. Correspondingly, this new reality changed the scene and posed new demands in data analysis. The contradiction between the initial aim of a study and the reality of research in times of crisis led to tensions and the drama of the reformation or reorientation of the data analysis processes. Researchers stood in front of a labyrinth of multiple methodological choices and imponderable research paths and directions. However, as Dafermos (2022, p. 10) argues “during ongoing and unprecedented global crises, it is essential to think, imagine, learn and develop out of the box.”. In many cases, this tantalizing new reality created the opportunity for the researchers to get involved in a critical, dialectical, and open-ended “dialogue” with their data. It made them reflect more on their data sets, think differently about their analysis, use different lenses or new methodological standpoints to see potential in data, and find new horizons in research. Part II brings together four indicative examples of research labyrinths and the new methods the researchers invented to step their way out of them. To follow the metaphor of the labyrinth, dialectics are seen here as the clew that allowed and supported this passage.

As also shown in Chap. 1, the condensed forms of development created by the global pandemic allowed researchers to stretch their theorizations, master methodological principles, empower their analytical skills, and deepen their understanding of children’s worlds. In this Chapter, we showcase how in diverse research contexts and various forms of crisis researchers, implicitly or explicitly, used dialectics to think in new ways and developed new methods to deepen their analysis. Drawing on the cultural-historical theory, we conceptualize dialectics and dialectical thinking as a creative mode of thinking (Dafermos, 2018) that allows the identification of interrelations between elements, the synthesis of these elements as a whole, and the understanding of the changing and transformative nature of this whole over time. A crisis is seen here in a twofold way. Firstly, as “a basis to exercise creativity” (Vygotsky, 2004, p. 28–29). Secondly, as an accelerator of the process of becoming and maturing as researchers in the same way that “crises act as accelerators of the ‘whole process of history’ “(Dafermos, 2022, p. 7). We also argue that the digitalization of the data and data analysis procedures created the conditions for this dialectical shift in times of crisis.

Within this framework, we introduce the idea of researchers’ creative imagination conceptualized as the perspicacity and the insightfulness that allows the researcher to start seeing data in a deep relational rather than causal way. The crisis as a turning point in the process of development of many researchers that allowed them to unpack and develop their researchers’ personalities is also discussed. Together with the notion of the researchers’ consciousness as a mature form of researching together with teachers discussed in Part I, the findings build on our understanding of the emergence of a form of digital methodological agency for researchers. The unique way this agency was developed and expressed in each case as a response to the new societal conditions and the new institutional realities that followed is presented in the following sub-section.

2 New Methods of Analysis in Times of Crisis

Part II of this book illustrates and brings together four Chapters. Through the four Chapters the challenges and opportunities of digital analysis that emerged while researching within early childhood institutional and home settings in times of pandemic and in times of crisis are illustrated. The Chapters are written collectively by Ph.D. students, early and mid-career researchers, and experienced researchers. All researchers are devoted to researching with young children in ethical, responsive, responsible, and innovative ways to understand and better support the child’s worlds.

In Chap. 8, Gillian O’Connor, Glykeria Fragkiadaki, Marilyn Fleer, and Prabhat Rai share insights about The use of digital artifacts to analyse science concept formation in very young children. The chapter introduces the reader to the uniqueness of science learning and development in infancy and toddlerhood. The authors foreground the strengths of young learners in science and the complexity of their science experiences. At the same time, the contradictions, tensions, and dilemmas when researching with very young children are spotted and highlighted (e.g., mapping their thinking in science while they are non-verbal yet, or making visible what has remained unknown that is, the capacity of infants in science). The above challenges are framed in the pandemic and post-pandemic era. The chapter points out how the uncertainty of the pandemic put more and different demands on the existing challenges as well as the role of the researcher within this highly demanding and continuously changing framework. The authors suggest how using a digital visual methodology and adopting a dialectical research lens, many of the challenges inherent in studying very young children, and research limitations imposed by the pandemic can be overcome. Digitalization allowed the researcher to revisit the empirical data sets and search for the infants’ science experiences in dialectical interrelation with reality and the relations created in the activity setting. It is argued that digital artifacts can create the conditions for the digital recreation of the body and the experience of the child providing access to a revised and enriched research reality that the researcher is able to revisit and reflect on from different perspectives. The creative imagination of a researcher in times of crisis and in digitalized situations appears to be critical for unpacking and better understanding the multiple and diverse aspects of the young child’s learning and development.

Chapter 9 entitled A cultural-historical re-conceptualisation of digital pre-and post-survey design embedded in a dynamic multi-modal professional development program is written by Anne Suryani, Marilyn Fleer, and Prabhat Rai. The chapter touches upon the critical issue of the professional development of early childhood teachers. The concept of crisis appears in the chapter in a twofold way. Firstly, as a developmental crisis expressed by early childhood teachers as a response to the continuous demand and need to improve their knowledge, skills, and competencies in order to respond to a highly demanding profession. Secondly, as a crisis experienced by early childhood teaching through the implementation of a CPW as a teaching intervention in early childhood settings everyday practice. The chapter provides a novel analysis of empirical data coming from mixed methods and multiple sources. From a cultural-historical perspective, the analysis goes beyond documenting the outcomes of the professional development of the participants in the program. A cultural-historical re-conceptualisation of pre- and post-survey design is introduced. How points of crisis, were embedded in early childhood teachers’ new educational realities and led to qualitative changes in their practice are presented and discussed. The chapter adds to the literature providing insights into a cultural-historical understanding of teachers’ development.

Maria Dardanou, Ioanna Palaiologou, and Sarika Kewalramani contributed to the book by Chap. 10 which is entitled Cultural Historical digital methodologies and analysis: Lessons learned from a hybrid to a fully digitalised approach. The chapter explores children’s use of Internet of Toys (IoToys) at home with make-believe play and the types of interactions/behaviours within children’s make-believe play in digital playscapes. The study is part of a small-scale research project in England, Norway, and Australia. As in most cases presented in this book, the new demands posed by the pandemic led to the reformation of the study design and the data collection process. To respond and adjust to the new reality, the researchers made the choice to use remote data collection methods and narrative observations. As a result, a wide and diverse range of digital data was generated such as self-recorded videos by parents at home settings, multimedia messages including pictures, videos, short written reflections from parents of children’s play at home through a private WhatsApp group, data from children’s live zoom-based play combined with conversations with the researcher, and self-recorded videos by early childhood teachers. A plethora of modes such as speech, sound, text, digital touch, and movement were digitally captured and recorded within children’s physical and digital play spaces. To consider the challenge of multiple modes the authors introduced and used a multimodal analytical approach. Thematic analysis, inductive and deductive approaches, semantic and latent approaches were dialectically combined and used as an analytical scheme to explore children’s play. These multiple modes appear to capture the wholeness of the context allowing the researchers to put together and make sense of different types and qualities of data and deepen their analysis. The chapter concludes with a critical reflection on visual research methodologies where the authors discuss a framework to respond to ethical anxieties and dilemmas in context.

Written by Fatema Taj Johora, Marilyn Fleer, and Marie Hammer Chap. 11 is entitled “Digital methodology beyond the everyday: Analytical model for interpreting inclusion of children with disabilities in preschool”. The chapter seeks to capture inclusion in action within preschool settings. Using digital methodologies the research design focused on five principles to utilize the quality of the collected data and allow an in-depth analysis: (a) going beyond the technical capture of the data collection process had been informed by theory, (b) capturing the whole experience rather than a fraction of the experience of the child, (c) generating data within the everyday educational reality that is, into a living laboratory rather than to collect data in clinical settings, (e) collecting digital data over time to capture development as a dynamic process, and (f) theorizing participation by a cultural-historical conception of child development and explain it as a social relation. The chapter illustrates the dialectical interplay between the child and the institutional practices. It is shown that this interplay can lead either to a crisis or an opportunity for inclusion and development depending on the responsive and supportive or not role of the adult. In line with the previous empirical insights gained by Chaps. 8, 9, and 10, it is the essence of the dialectics and dialectical understanding between the child and her environment that allowed the researchers to conceptualize inclusion beyond the traditional biomedical model or social model and understand the child’s needs and intentions.

In the following Figure (Fig. 7.1) the foreseeable (FC) and the emerging within the pandemic crises (PC) for each research project presented in Chaps. 8, 9, 10, and 11 are presented. The new methods of analysis that were generated in each case as a response to the demands of the new research realities are illustrated. We have chosen this figure to illustrate both the foreseeable along with the pandemic crisis. Our goal is to showcase that the pandemic crisis did not exist in an autonomous context. It came as an adding and unexpected challenge in the already complex and demanding research reality of a study. Thus, we suggest that the two types of crises, the ordinary and the main pandemic crisis, should be considered holistically.

Fig. 7.1

New methods of analysis as a response to foreseeable and emerging crises

Through the four cases presented above we can see how the crisis, expressed through and as contradictions, drama, tensions, and dilemmas, posed new demands on the researchers and how new and advanced methods of analysis in digital contexts were developed as a response to these new demands. In the sub-section that follows, we theorize these new methods as social and cultural practices, and we seek to explore the genesis of these practices and the essence of these methodological innovations.

3 Dialectics: A Clew in the Research Labyrinths

Vygotsky’s treatment of crisis is based on the dialectical relationship between continuity and discontinuity, qualitative and quantitative changes. The connection between opposite sides and forces of the developmental process is intrinsically dynamic and dialectical rather than static and metaphysical. (Dafermos, 2022, p.7)

In all cases presented above, the crisis became evident in the research projects in different ways such as contradictions, drama, tensions, and dilemmas. However, despite the disruptions, the destabilizations, and the transformations, in none of these cases, did the crisis become an obstacle or a disorientation in the process of development for the researcher or the research project. Researchers appeared to experience the crisis as a turning point and managed to meet the new demands posed by the global pandemic and the ongoing challenges. But, it is only when researchers started looking for the dialectical relationships within the data sets, recognizing new units of analysis, and synthesising the interrelations in a new whole that became able to see beyond and through the crisis, underpin new methods, and create new developmental conditions for their research projects and, importantly, for the participants in the projects. It is argued that dialectics became the turning point in researchers’ experience and thinking and led to the development through the crisis.

For example, in Chap. 8 we watch the discontinuity in capturing and documenting the historicity of infants’ and toddlers’ learning and development as well as the contradiction of trying to capture development while children were non-verbal, and no narratives were recorded in the data sets. Using a dialect lens allowed researchers to focus, analyze, and reflect on the unity between intellect and action (Vygotsky, 1987) as well as the dialectic relation between the biological aspect and the social-cultural aspect of learning. Children’s conceptual thinking in science and the embodiment of their science experience expressed by aspects such as gestures and body positioning, are seen as a whole. This holistic understanding gave us an insight into young children’s thinking in science and allowed us to see evidence of learning and qualitative changes in the child’s development in science at a microgenetic level.

Chapter 9 shares insights into the dramatic situation of teachers trying to sustain and develop their practice in a demanding field such as STEM learning in times of crisis. The core contradiction, in this case, lies in trying to achieve professional development in a shut-off world and a profession that is multiply besieged. Apart from these opposite situations, the researchers appeared, in this case too, to face discontinuities in the data collection processes as well as the demand to bring together and make sense of qualitative and quantitative changes in teachers’ professional development process. Following a cultural-historical perspective, the researchers used a dialectical lens to reflect on their data and bring them together in a meaningful system. Dialectical thinking is seen here in two ways. Firstly, through interrelating the teacher and the professional community, that is, showing the unity between the individual and the collective. Secondly, through interrelating and seeing as whole quantitative and qualitative changes in the professional development process of teachers combining data from online surveys, workshops experiences, and practice in the classrooms.

Respectively, in Chap. 10, a discontinuity of empirical data is also described. In parallel, issues about contradictions in using visual methodologies and dilemmas regarding ethics are discussed. The authors used a dialectical lens to find the connections between chunks of data in diverse contexts and situations. It is through the unity of modes though that the researchers begin to make sense of the data and understand children’s development. In this research example, dialectical thinking allowed researchers to unpack the cultural nature of digital arifacts and visual methodologies to capture the lived experiences of children. However, as the authors argued the role of the researcher and the researcher’s agency and personality is critical. Researchers should continuously be in a dialectical interrelation with the data sets in order to seek signs, schemes, symbols, and ethical “micro-moments” that will allow us to make sense of the child’s complex worlds in times and contexts of crisis.

In Chap. 11 dialectics are expressed through the unity of the child and the social reality experienced in early childhood settings. Central to this chapter is the dilemma of how to capture and understand inclusion in a way that reflects the child’s world in everyday life. The realization of this unit allows the researchers to make an in-depth analysis of the child’s inclusion as a real-life phenomenon for the child and as an everyday practice within the early childhood center. By introducing a relational model of analysis, the authors of the chapter bring together in a dialectical way digital methodology and cultural-historical analytical tools to develop new understandings about inclusion in early childhood settings.

Taken together, the above examples are indicative of how the walls of a research labyrinth might look in times of crisis. Dialectics as a cultural means changed the researchers’ experience and allowed them to reform and develop their research practice to reach their research goals similar to a cathartic process. Dialectical thinking allowed new dimensions of analysis to emerge such as new units of analysis (e.g., the unity between the teacher and the professional community or between the qualitative and quantitative changes in professional development), and new uses of digital means to support the analysis (e.g., documentation of multiple modes). These dimensions are expressions of the development of the researchers’ creative imagination. New methods of analysis per se (e.g., digital recreation of the body and the experience) started to develop in this framework. A new space of reflection was created where researchers managed to develop new motives such as the motive of adjustment and new values such as solidarity and resilience within research contexts were also developed. The following figure (Fig. 7.2) illustrates the stepping stones within the labyrinth that acted as the clew that allowed the passage through the crisis.

Fig. 7.2

The research labyrinth and the clew in times of crisis

From the researcher’s perspective, the above examples are seen as a journey to discover the researcher’s personality and become aware of the complexity and uncertainty of the research world and its ever-changing possibilities and opportunities. Developing their creative imagination through new methods, researchers explored and mastered their labyrinths. They started building or strengthening their methodological agency by inventing new methods, and created the conditions for the development of their personality as a researcher (Vygotsky, 1998). The whole process had been a socially and culturally oriented process in motion.

4 Conclusions

What can be understood in the above cases is that although all research teams were experiencing a complex, challenging, and high-demanding situation they managed to rise to the occasion and successfully respond to the new challenges generated by diverse crises. In all cases, researchers appeared to go beyond the borderline of the research restrictions and the data reductions and find their pathways within the Labyrinths of the analysis. It seems that they all chose to dialectically reflect and think in ways on the analysis, making a liberating focus on understanding dialectics within the data that allowed them to see the richness and complexity of the findings. However, what is important here is that although all research teams were experiencing the same societal reality, that is the pandemic, they made sense and responded differently to the new reality. Thus, it can be argued that it was the researcher’s perezhivanie that allowed them to experience crisis as ‘a source of strength’ (Vygotsky, 1993, p.56) rather than as an obstacle and obstruction.

Having this positioning in research, the researchers used their creative imagination to bring together the chunks of data they collected under extraordinary circumstances and use dialectics to see units of analysis through new methods that pay attention to the new and deep relations that come into life through and within crises. The digitalization of the data analysis procedures created the conditions for this dialectical shift allowing the dynamic and multi-perspective visit of digital data. In conclusion, the transformative nature of the crisis enhanced and empowered their analytical skills and generated the new analytical methods presented in detail in the chapters that follow in this Section.