Uncovering Ingenuity in Working Class Families’ Everyday Practices
Jennifer Higgs, Joanne Tien, Arturo Cortéz, Patrick Johnson, Sepehr Vakil, Elizabeth Mendoza, Kris Gutiérrez
Abstract: In this analysis we explore the ways in which the everyday practices of 4 working class families index their ingenuity, or their resourceful reorganization of materials, time, and space, to support meaningful interactions in their social worlds. We present in this poster representative data from our analysis of families’ everyday practices that illustrate how members transformed their everyday practices and resources (including but not limited to digital technologies) into opportunities for new forms of learning across contexts and tools.
Perspectives: Scholars have underscored the importance of looking with “new eyes” at the varied ways in which people creatively and ingeniously transform their environments through participation structures (e.g., Gutiérrez, 2008; McDermott & Raley, 2011). Following these scholars, and drawing on Vygotsky’s (1978) notion of playful imagination as well as Cole’s notion of social inheritance (Cole, 1978), we view ingenuity not as an individual achievement but rather as a socially distributed phenomenon that manifests as playful yet deliberate adaptation of resources at hand (McDermott & Raley, 2011). These perspectives frame our understandings of family members’ everyday practices as “playgrounds” for agentic participation in and orchestration of their social worlds.
In the context of the study described in this poster, the theoretical perspectives outlined above help us conceptualize the ways in which family members imagine new roles for themselves and the social construction of new, creative modes of digitally mediated participation and interaction that emerge under certain constraints.
Methods:
Study Design
The analysis reported here developed within the context of a larger multi-sited ethnography (Marcus, 1995). We took an ecological approach to our inquiry, noting daily routines, social networks, family routines, and family beliefs about health, education, energy, social networks, and digital media use.
Participants
14 families in total participated (12 Latino, 2 White). Families self-identified as working class. We focus here on 4 families (2 Latino, 2 White).
Qualitative Data Sources
•Video recorded observations: 175+ hours
•Surveys/Interviews: Family members’ perceptions of issues related to health, education, energy, social networks, and digital media use
•Photos/videos taken by family members
Data Analysis
•Video and audio logged in 2- and 10-minute segments on variety of metadata (e.g., tool use, main activity)
•Units of analysis: Family home practices (Level 1); Instances of ingenuity (Level II)
•Subcodes (Level III) developed inductively during systematic coding of video recordings, interview transcripts, survey responses, field notes, and video logs
•Data further reduced through analytic memos and weekly research team meetings that helped identify salient themes shared across the focal families
Perspectives: Scholars have underscored the importance of looking with “new eyes” at the varied ways in which people creatively and ingeniously transform their environments through participation structures (e.g., Gutiérrez, 2008; McDermott & Raley, 2011). Following these scholars, and drawing on Vygotsky’s (1978) notion of playful imagination as well as Cole’s notion of social inheritance (Cole, 1978), we view ingenuity not as an individual achievement but rather as a socially distributed phenomenon that manifests as playful yet deliberate adaptation of resources at hand (McDermott & Raley, 2011). These perspectives frame our understandings of family members’ everyday practices as “playgrounds” for agentic participation in and orchestration of their social worlds.
In the context of the study described in this poster, the theoretical perspectives outlined above help us conceptualize the ways in which family members imagine new roles for themselves and the social construction of new, creative modes of digitally mediated participation and interaction that emerge under certain constraints.
Methods:
Study Design
The analysis reported here developed within the context of a larger multi-sited ethnography (Marcus, 1995). We took an ecological approach to our inquiry, noting daily routines, social networks, family routines, and family beliefs about health, education, energy, social networks, and digital media use.
Participants
14 families in total participated (12 Latino, 2 White). Families self-identified as working class. We focus here on 4 families (2 Latino, 2 White).
Qualitative Data Sources
•Video recorded observations: 175+ hours
•Surveys/Interviews: Family members’ perceptions of issues related to health, education, energy, social networks, and digital media use
•Photos/videos taken by family members
Data Analysis
•Video and audio logged in 2- and 10-minute segments on variety of metadata (e.g., tool use, main activity)
•Units of analysis: Family home practices (Level 1); Instances of ingenuity (Level II)
•Subcodes (Level III) developed inductively during systematic coding of video recordings, interview transcripts, survey responses, field notes, and video logs
•Data further reduced through analytic memos and weekly research team meetings that helped identify salient themes shared across the focal families
Results: Our emergent analysis suggests that members of the focal families actively repurposed everyday practices (e.g., video gaming, commuting to and from school with children) and resources (e.g., communal family space, internet connection) in order to:
•“reclaim” mundane activities (e.g., snack time, family movie time, instant messaging) to support formal and informal learning
•engage in boundary crossing/line stepping, or what we call the negotiation of identities different from those typically dictated by family or school structures
•pursue digitally-mediated and/or interest-based learning opportunities and communities;
•engage family members in digitally-mediated and/or interest-based learning opportunities and communities
Based on these initial findings, we posit that ingenuity happens in everyday moments and that it often manifests as creative responses to constraints in the environment.
Additionally, we notice that varied displays of everyday ingenuity always involve the participation of more than one person, whether in the household or outside of the household. This points to the socially distributed and negotiated nature of such playful, purposeful rearrangement of everyday practices.
•“reclaim” mundane activities (e.g., snack time, family movie time, instant messaging) to support formal and informal learning
•engage in boundary crossing/line stepping, or what we call the negotiation of identities different from those typically dictated by family or school structures
•pursue digitally-mediated and/or interest-based learning opportunities and communities;
•engage family members in digitally-mediated and/or interest-based learning opportunities and communities
Based on these initial findings, we posit that ingenuity happens in everyday moments and that it often manifests as creative responses to constraints in the environment.
Additionally, we notice that varied displays of everyday ingenuity always involve the participation of more than one person, whether in the household or outside of the household. This points to the socially distributed and negotiated nature of such playful, purposeful rearrangement of everyday practices.
Significance:
Ingenuity is:
•Resourcefulness, making, tinkering, fixing, and boundary crossing/line stepping
•Everyday, deliberative, innovative family practices
•Socially constructed (as opposed to an individual accomplishment)
These findings have implications for the design of learning environments (e.g., new pedagogical and curricular approaches) rooted in the everyday sociocultural practices of youth from non-dominant communities.
Emergent Questions:
In what ways do parents’ ideologies around new media organize or constrain opportunities for identity development for youth?
In what ways do family members engage digital media to transcend physical boundaries set by race, class, gender, or urban space?
References:
Cole, M. (1998). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gutiérrez, K. D. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(2), 148-164.
Marcus, G. E. (1995). Ethnography in/of the world system: The emergence of multi-sited ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24, 95-117.
McDermott, R., & Raley, J. (2011). Looking closely: Toward a natural history of human ingenuity. In E. Margolis & L. Pauwels (Eds.), Handbook of visual research methods. (pp. 272-291). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Ingenuity is:
•Resourcefulness, making, tinkering, fixing, and boundary crossing/line stepping
•Everyday, deliberative, innovative family practices
•Socially constructed (as opposed to an individual accomplishment)
These findings have implications for the design of learning environments (e.g., new pedagogical and curricular approaches) rooted in the everyday sociocultural practices of youth from non-dominant communities.
Emergent Questions:
In what ways do parents’ ideologies around new media organize or constrain opportunities for identity development for youth?
In what ways do family members engage digital media to transcend physical boundaries set by race, class, gender, or urban space?
References:
Cole, M. (1998). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gutiérrez, K. D. (2008). Developing a sociocritical literacy in the third space. Reading Research Quarterly, 43(2), 148-164.
Marcus, G. E. (1995). Ethnography in/of the world system: The emergence of multi-sited ethnography. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24, 95-117.
McDermott, R., & Raley, J. (2011). Looking closely: Toward a natural history of human ingenuity. In E. Margolis & L. Pauwels (Eds.), Handbook of visual research methods. (pp. 272-291). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher mental process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.