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 services’ 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, “Did you say your two mums?” “There’s no such thing as having two mums!” Mario notes that the excitement drops from Luke’s face, instead replaced by embarrassment, as he is visually observed to withdraw from his peers, while he tries to make sense of Carla’s 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 Samson’s families hold on topics related to ‘family’, 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 ‘plan, act, observe and reflect’, 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 ‘typical’ 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 student—University of Southern Queensland.
Chapter Synopsis
This chapter presents a picture of the contemporary landscape in which families with young children are located, and the multiple interpretations of ‘the family’. A strong rationale is offered for the value of engaging in researching with, and of, young families, including the recognition that children are significant agents within the domestic space of the family home, and other environments in which they are embedded. Contemporary understandings and constructions of families and their dynamic contexts are introduced in this chapter, while noting the need for being critically aware of the dominant discourse that prevails within these spaces, and which may privilege dominant narratives.
How is ‘the young family’ defined and understood in post-modernist times?
How have young families changed over time, and across places and spaces?
What is the impact of ‘family change’, on a child’s 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 ‘the family’, 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 ‘with’ young families in ethical and respectful inquiry, rather than research ‘about’, or ‘on’, 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).
Journal Entry 1—The Morning Rush
Mary Wagner, a 35-year-old mother to Benjamin, 18 months; Katy, 6 years; and Marcus, 14 years; takes pride in her parenting ability. She feels that despite the daily challenges experienced and faced with raising a busy young family, her husband and herself are managing well and making every effort to provide their children with a good start in life.
This morning is another typically hectic and rushed morning in the Wagner household. Susan is holding down the fort, as her husband Marty has had to leave early for work again today. Her teenage son Marcus is having trouble emerging from his bed and organising himself for the day ahead, so Mary is trying to urge him into the shower, while pressing a uniform for Katy, putting on quick a load of wash, shovelling down her own breakfast, and rinsing the dirty dishes. In the meantime, 18-month-old Benjamin is crying out for attention and pulling utensils out of a kitchen drawer, discovering that the spatula he has in his hand makes a great sound when hit on the leg of the kitchen table. “20 minutes till we need to go!” Susan calls out.
Susan flicks on the television and luckily Peppa Pig is on, one of Benjamin’s favourite shows. She gently nudges Ben towards the TV, while experiencing a brief pang of guilt in using the TV as sort of ‘babysitter’, weary that her son shouldn’t be watching too much TV at his age. However, this feeling quickly dissipates as Ben focusses his attention on the pink pig and starts to sing a song with Peppa that she believes is quite ‘educational’. (Adapted from the writing and efforts of Emma Smolenaers, honours student—University of Southern Queensland)
Background
What happens behind the doors of domestic spaces in which young families live has intrigued many within contemporary society and, indeed, throughout time. In the post-modernist world in which we live, the media and its ability to present a sort of voyeurism into family life have positioned a panopticon gaze, causing a widespread culture of surveillance (Bratich, 2017; Foucault, 1979) on the lives of families. Inherent in this scrutiny is a legacy, or default position for forming opinions, making comparisons and judgements (based on ones’ own positionality and perspectives) on topics such as definitions of family, their roles and responsibilities, and parenting practices.
A large body of research confirms the family context as being a significant location where a child’s learning, behaviour, and development takes place, with parents, primary carers, and other significant adults recognised as important as a child’s 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 children’s 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 ‘regime of truth’ (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 “are often cited as evidence of the ‘high returns’ to be gained from ‘investing’ in ‘early interventions’, with claims of anything from up to $17 in benefits for every $1 spent” (p. 92)....