Advertisement

Unplanning Research with a Curious Practice Methodology: Emergence of Childrenforest in the Context of Finland

  • Anna VladimirovaEmail author
  • Pauliina Rautio
Reference work entry
  • 6 Downloads
Part of the Springer International Handbooks of Education book series (SIHE)

Abstract

This chapter explores the notion of curious practice and the methodology of its application in the context of primary school education in Finland. The concept of curious practice encourages us – researchers and educators – to ask “How does curious practice help us to address children’s relations to forests beyond the child (in) nature dualism?” Curious practice challenges the existing environmental education methodologies employed in recent years that draw heavily on research planning, the child’s representation of nature, and the results of a completed study. Despret’s (Domesticating practices: The case of Arabian Babblers. In G. Marvin and S. McHugh (Eds.), Routledge handbook of human–animal studies (pp. 23–38). New York: Routledge, 2014) approach of curious practice encourages researchers to unplan and make themselves available to the yet unknown, for every single encounter with the other is a mixture of unpredictability, the researcher’s attentiveness, and imagination. The rationale behind curious practice is in learning more about what is seen and heard via questioning the encounters that accept various absences of a preconceived framework of research. As a necessary complement to such a methodology, the chapter also presents a semiotic approach, employed by Eduardo Kohn (How forests think: Toward an anthropology beyond the human. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013), to inform the method of studying the logic of the world beyond human symbolism. The data used reveal an interdependency of children and forests that will be referred to as childrenforest in that it continuously generates a network of signs which adults and children themselves often are unable to access or represent. These present absences found in curious practice are crucial for our understanding of what we have overlooked while claiming that the other is known. With that, however, childrenforest cannot be fully grasped. Andrew Pickering’s (Natures Sciences Sociétés, 1(21), 77–83, 2013) notion of islands of stability is utilized to elaborate the ways that childrenforests signal the presence of the seemingly stable configurations of their dynamic becoming. The chapter concludes with a short discussion of the potential areas of curious practice application beyond the ethological and childhood research.

Keywords

Curious practice Despret Islands of stability Semiosis of childrenforest Reals Unplanning 

References

  1. Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. Durham, UK: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bennett, J. (2010). Vibrant matter: A political ecology of things. Durham, UK: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blaise, M. (2016). Fabricated childhoods: Uncanny encounters with the more-than-human. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 37(5), 617–626.  https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2015.1075697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Borge, A. I. H., Nordhagen, R., & Lie, K. K. (2003). Children in the environment: Forest day-care centers: Modern day care with historical antecedents. History of the Family, 8(4), 605.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hisfam.2003.04.001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Braidotti, R. (2013). The posthuman. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  6. Brinkmann, S. (2014). Doing without data. Qualitative Inquiry, 20(6), 720–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buchanan, B. (2015). The metamorphoses of Vinciane Despret. Angelaki, 20(2), 17–32.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0969725X.2015.1039818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buchanan, B., Chrulew, M., & Bussolini, J. (2015). On asking the right questions. Angelaki, 20(2), 165–178.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0969725X.2015.1039821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Buller, H. (2014). Animal geographies I. Progress in Human Geography, 38(2), 308–318.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132513479295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Burman, E. (2007). Deconstructing developmental psychology (Paperback 2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Chazdon, R. L., Brancalion, P. H. S., Laestadius, L., et al. (2016). When is a forest a forest? Forest concepts and definitions in the era of forest and landscape restoration. Ambio, 45(5), 538–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Clarke, D. A. G., & Mcphie, J. (2014). Becoming animate in education: Immanent materiality and outdoor learning for sustainability. Journal of Adventure Education and Outdoor Learning, 14(3), 198–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Daston, L., & Park, K. (1998). Wonders and the order of nature (pp. 1150–1750). New York, NY/Cambridge, MA: Zone Books; Distributed by the MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1987). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia (B. Massumi, Trans.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  15. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1994). What is philosophy? (H. Tomlinson, & G. Burchell, Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Despret, V. (2014). Domesticating practices: The case of Arabian babblers. In G. Marvin & S. McHugh (Eds.), Routledge handbook of human–animal studies (pp. 23–38). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Despret, V. (2015). The enigma of the raven. Angelaki, 20(2), 57–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dewey, J. (1933). How we think: A restatement of the relation of reflective thinking to the educative process (Vol. 8). Boston, MA: D.C. Heath & Co Publishers. Southern Illinois Up, 1986/2008.Google Scholar
  19. Duhn, I. (2016). Speculating on childhood and time, with Michael Ende’s Momo (1973). Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 17(4), 377–386.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1463949116677922.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Evans, R. J. W., & Marr, A. (Eds.). (2006). Curiosity and wonder from the renaissance to the enlightenment. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate Press.Google Scholar
  21. Fenwick, T., Edwards, R., & Sawchuck, P. (2011). Emerging approaches to educational research: Tracing the sociomaterial. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Fjørtoft, I. (2001). The natural environment as a playground for children: The impact of outdoor play activities in pre-primary school children. Early Childhood Education Journal, 29(2), 111–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Golden, A. (2013). Preschool children explore the forest – the power of wild places in childhood. In D. R. Meier & S. Sisk-Hilton (Eds.), Nature education with young children: Integrating inquiry and practice (pp. 123–136). Florence, Italy: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Goldman, L. (1998). Child’s play: Myth, mimesis and make-believe. New York, NY: Berg Publishers.Google Scholar
  25. Gordon, A. F. (2008). Ghostly matters: Haunting and the sociological imagination. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  26. Griebling, S. (2015). “Trees and things that live in trees”: Three children with special needs experience the project approach. Early Childhood Research & Practice, 17(1). Retrieved 10 April 2017 from http://ecrp.uiuc.edu/v17n1/griebling.html.
  27. Haraway, D. (2008). When species meet. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  28. Haraway, D. (2015). A curious practice. Angelaki, 20(2), 5–14.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0969725X.2015.1039817.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Harris, F. (2015). The nature of learning at forest school: Practitioners’ perspectives. Education, 3(13), 1–20.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2015.1078833.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Holton, G. (1996). On the art of scientific imagination. Daedalus, 125(2), 183–208. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20013446.Google Scholar
  31. Holton, G. (2016). Our puzzling universe: From a promising beginning to forbidden knowledge. Social Research, 83(4), 905–916.Google Scholar
  32. Hume, D. (1975). In L. A. Selby-Bigge & P. H. Nidditch (Eds.), Enquiries concerning human understanding and concerning principles of morals. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1751, 1777).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ingold, T. (2013). Making: Anthropology, archaeology, art and architecture. Oxon, UK: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Karhunkorva, R. (2005). “Kuulin metsän tarinan”: kulttuurisesti ymmärretyn metsän merkitykset kuudesluokkalaisten Olipa kerran metsä –kirjoituksissa. [“I heard the story of the forest”: Culturally understood meanings of the forest in the six-graders’ “Once upon a time there was a forest” scripts]. Jyväskylä, Finland: Jyväskylä University Digital Archive.Google Scholar
  35. Kirksey, S. E., & Helmreich, S. (2010). The emergence of multispecies ethnography. Cultural Anthropology, 25(4), 545–576.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-1360.2010.01069.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kohn, E. (2013). How forests think: Toward an anthropology beyond the human. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Korhonen, P. (2008). Lasten TV-ohjelmiin liittyvät pelot, painajaisunet ja pelonhallinta. [Children’s TV-included fears, nightmares, and coping with fears] (Acta Universitatis Tamperensis, Vol. 1332) Tampere, Finland: University of Tampere.Google Scholar
  38. Koro-Ljungberg, M. (2013). “Data” as vital illusion. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 13(4), 274–278.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708613487873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Koro-Ljungberg, M. (2015). Reconceptualizing qualitative research: Methodologies without methodology. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
  40. Latour, B. (1994). Pragmatogonies. American Behavioral Scientist, 37(6), 791–808.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764294037006006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Leask, N. (2002). Curiosity and the aesthetics of travel-writing, 1770–1840: ‘From an antique land’: From an antique land’. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Lenz Taguchi, H. (2011). Investigating learning, participation and becoming in early childhood practices with a relational materialist approach. Global Studies of Childhood, 1(1), 36–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lorimer, J. (2007). Nonhuman charisma. Environment and planning D. Society and Space, 25(5), 911–932.Google Scholar
  44. Lorimer, J. (2010). Moving image methodologies for more-than-human geographies. Cultural Geographies, 17(2), 237–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. MacLure, M. (2013). The wonder of data. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 13(4), 228–232.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1532708613487863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Malone, K. (2015). Theorizing a child–dog encounter in the slums of La Paz using post-humanistic approaches in order to disrupt universalisms in current ‘child in nature’ debates. Children’s Geographies, 14(4), 390–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. McMillan, M. (1904). Education through the imagination. S. Sonnenschein & Co., Lim. Retrieved from: https://archive.org/details/educationthroug01mcmigoog.
  48. Munita, J. M., & Arias, C. A. (2016). Mechanisms of antibiotic resistance. Microbiology Spectrum, 4(2).  https://doi.org/10.1128/microbiolspec.VMBF-0016-2015.
  49. Murris, K. (2013). The epistemic challenge of hearing child’s voice. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 32(3), 245–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pacini-Ketchabaw, V. (2013). Frictions in Forest Pedagogies: Common Worlds in Settler Colonial Spaces. Global Studies of Childhood, 3(4), pp. 355–365.Google Scholar
  51. Payne, P. G. (2016). What next? Post-critical materialisms in environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education, 47(2), 169–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pickering, A. (2008). Culture: Science studies and technoscience. In T. Bennett & J. Frow (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of cultural analysis (pp. 291–310). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pickering, A. (2013). Being in an environment: A performative perspective. Natures Sciences Sociétés, 1(21), 77–83.  https://doi.org/10.1051/nss/2013067.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Pickering, A. (2017). The ontological turn: Taking different worlds seriously. Social Analysis, 61(2), 134–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rautio, P. (2014). Mingling and imitating in producing spaces for knowing and being: Insights from a Finnish study of child–matter intra-action. Childhood, 21(4), 461–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Reid, L., & Salonen, E., curators. (2016). Thinking like a forest. Retrieved 26 Feb 2017, from http://laurenkreid.com/Thinking-like-a-forest.
  57. Ridgers, N. D., Knowles, Z. R., & Sayers, J. (2012). Encouraging play in the natural environment: A child-focused case study of forest school. Children’s Geographies, 10(1), 49–65.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2011.638176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rudkowski, M. (2015). The complexity of understanding: Young children’s experiences in a forest program (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from SFU Summit institutional repository (Identifier: etd9305).Google Scholar
  59. Russell, C. L., Sarick, T., & Kenelly, J. (2002). Queering environmental education. Canadian Journal of Environmental Education, 7(1), 54–66.Google Scholar
  60. Schäffer, S. D., & Kistemann, T. (2012). German forest kindergartens: Healthy childcare under the leafy canopy. Children, Youth and Environments, 22(1), 270–279.  https://doi.org/10.7721/chilyoutenvi.22.1.0270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schmitt, F. F., & Lahroodi, R. (2008). The epistemic value of curiosity. Educational Theory, 58(2), 125–148.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5446.2008.00281.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Snaza, N., Appelbaum, P., Bayne, S., Carlson, D., Morris, M., Rotas, N., … Weaver, J. (2014). Toward a posthumanist education. Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, 30(2), 39–55.Google Scholar
  63. Snaza, N., & Weaver, J. A. (Eds.). (2015). Posthumanism and educational research. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  64. Stengers, I. (2011). Cosmopolitics II (R. Bononno, Trans.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  65. Stolberg, T. L. (2008). W(h)ither the sense of wonder of pre-service primary teachers’ when teaching science?: A preliminary study of their personal experiences. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24(8), 1958–1964. https://doi-org.libproxy.helsinki.fi/10.1016/j.tate.2008.05.005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Taylor, A., & Pacini-Ketchabaw, V. (2016). Kids, raccoons, and roos: Awkward encounters and mixed affects. Children’s Geographies, 15(2), 131–145.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14733285.2016.1199849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Taylor, N. (2012). Animals, mess, method: Post-humanism, sociology and animal studies. In L. Birke & J. Hockenhull (Eds.), Crossing boundaries. Investigating human-animal relationships (pp. 37–50). Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.Google Scholar
  68. Žižek, S., Reinhard, K., & Santner, E. L. (2013). The neighbor: Three inquiries in political theology, with a new preface (TRIOS) (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of OuluOuluFinland
  2. 2.Faculty of EducationUniversity of OuluOuluFinland

Section editors and affiliations

  • Paul Hart
    • 1
  • Phillip Payne
    • 2
  1. 1.Science EducationUniversity of ReginaReginaCanada
  2. 2.Monash UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations