Scenario 1: Integrating Inclusive Approaches to Interpretations of Family Through Action Research
In an urban kindergarten setting, Mario, a doctoral student, sits quietly, observing a group of children huddled in the sandpit chatting about their weekends and their adventures. Mario is working on a collaborative action research project with the servicesâ early childhood teachers, on the integration of authentic inclusive practices within the EC curriculum. Mario listens to Carla sharing her experience of enjoying time with her mum and dad picnicking, and playing in a local park. Samson pipes up and excitedly reminisces about making dinosaur biscuits in the kitchen with his little sister and nanna, while Luke excitedly details his experience of camping with his mothers and catching a Biggggggg fish (which he measures as his arms stretch out widely)!
Carla then remarks, âDid you say your two mums?â âThereâs no such thing as having two mums!â Mario notes that the excitement drops from Lukeâs face, instead replaced by embarrassment, as he is visually observed to withdraw from his peers, while he tries to make sense of Carlaâs words, and contemplates a response.
Clair (one of the educators at the service) is also outside closely observing the play episode unfold. She is reflecting on the contextual insights she has of each of these children, particularly the traditional views that Carla and Samsonâs families hold on topics related to âfamilyâ, and their role and make-up. Having heard and witnessed the scene unfold, she promptly steps in, in an effort to refocus the children. She offers the children some miniature toy houses, tractors, and animals, prompting the children to consider how they might incorporate these items into their sand play. Distracted by these new resources, the children easily turn their attention to embellishing their creative pursuits, while Claire breathes a sigh of relief, thankful that she has deescalated the situation.
During morning tea, Clair and Mario discuss the scene both having observed, and comment that while changes in modern family dynamics are evidenced in contemporary reality and across public and community spaces, heteronormative stereotypes continue to exist. Unfortunately, these understandings and appreciations of diverse family structures are not necessarily making their way, or being reflected in early childhood contexts and pedagogy. After chatting to several of their colleagues, the team agree that it would be valuable to move through the next action research cycle of âplan, act, observe and reflectâ, with a focus on exploring strategies for authentically integrating more inclusive discourse and pedagogical approaches for supporting multiple interpretations of family, that extend beyond the construct of the traditional nuclear family, including making visible same-sex parented families and non-heterosexuality.
As Clair continues to move about her day with a heightened sense of consciousness regarding this issue, she notices evidence of hegemonic family structure throughout the service, from the displays in the dramatic play areas, and books included on the shelves, to the language and examples shared through songs, and discussion during group time, each of these making reference to the âtypicalâ family. The placement of these resources further marginalising children like Luke in terms of reinforcing a particular discourse, and membership regarding family, one which Luke is not able to identify with. In doing so, these practices and environments send a dominant message of the valuing of one type of family over another.
Inspired by the research of Alicia Cameron, honours studentâUniversity of Southern Queensland.
How is âthe young familyâ defined and understood in post-modernist times?
How have young families changed over time, and across places and spaces?
What is the impact of âfamily changeâ, on a childâs development, and long-term life-course trajectory?
What factors impact on a parenting practices, values, and behaviours?
What role does the environment play in individual behaviour within young families?
Why research about, and with, young families?
What insights can we gain from the lived experiences and narratives of individuals in young families in terms of education, learning, health, and child development?
This chapter draws attention to the idiosyncratic nature of âthe familyâ, and reminds us that families are located within complex social ecological systems. The chapter addresses the richness and pervasive nature of the environments in which individuals are embedded. Much of this terrain is still unchartered, with the environments, the nuances, the factors that influence behaviour, and the perspectives of family members offering legitimate, and unlimited, potential for research.
This chapter concludes by providing a rationale for why we might choose to research âwithâ young families in ethical and respectful inquiry, rather than research âaboutâ, or âonâ, family members. This section of the text addresses the professional responsibilities we have as researchers for ensuring the rights of participants are respected and protected. This requires investing significant thought and commitment, so that in exploring the lifeworlds and meaning-making of family members we do so sensitively and with integrity (Hammersley, 2015; Palaiologou, 2014; Paris & Winn, 2014).
A large body of research confirms the family context as being a significant location where a childâs learning, behaviour, and development takes place, with parents, primary carers, and other significant adults recognised as important as a childâs first educators (Mannion & Walker, 2015; McMahon & Camberis, 2017). There is also a significant body of empirical studies that confirm the important role that parents of young children play as gatekeepers, and as critical contributors to childrenâs learning, development, and behaviours throughout the life-course trajectory (Eisenstadt, 2011; Emerson, Fear, Fox, & Sanders, 2012; Shonkoff, 2013; Sweeny, 2014; Zubrick et al., 2012). These studies and research affirm the importance of working closely with family, capacity building with families, and investing early in young children to help mitigate the impact, and associated health, development, and intervention costs anticipated for many, later in life (particularly with those identified as vulnerable or marginalised) (Heckman, 2006; Knudsen, Heckman, Cameron, & Shonkoff, 2006).
There is also evidence of a strong neoliberal narrative (Moss, 2015a), and one would even go so far as to say a âregime of truthâ (Dahlberg & Moss, 2005) that attempts to rationalise and normalise the economic benefit of investing early in young children as a proactive step in positioning society as one that is strong and sustainable (Heckman & Masterov, 2007; Mustard, 2008; Save The Children, 2009; Sweeny, 2014). Yet, academics like Moss (2015a, 2015b) raise concerns over universalising claims that âare often cited as evidence of the âhigh returnsâ to be gained from âinvestingâ in âearly interventionsâ, with claims of anything from up to $17 in benefits for every $1 spentâ (p. 92)....