[Xmca-l] Re: Gendered Access in Crafting and Electronics Practices
David Kellogg
dkellogg60@gmail.com
Fri Oct 24 00:24:07 PDT 2014
I have a bunch of rather silly questions, and then a comment about the
interpretation of the data.
p. 280: Why do we assume that nonverbal handing money to a cashier or
handing a birthday present to a friend is an unspoken agreement? It is
certainly true that the nonverbal component of the interaction may be
abstracted away from it. But there are actually very few nonverbal
handings, of either money or birthday presents, that would have the
same meaning. Isn't it more useful to consider that speech can play
varying degrees of importance in an interactioni (e.g. it can be
"ancillary" where the commodity being exchanged is goods or services
and it is essential when, as is normally the case in both handing
money to a cashier and handing a birthday present to a friend,
information is exchanged as well?
p. 283: Puppets are unusual in that, unlike socks, they necessarily
have symbolic meaning (that is, a sock puppet that is not a symbol for
some imaginary character is a sock and not a puppet). Was there any
character that went with the sock puppets? Was there any story that
went with the character? If so, where did the story come from, and was
there any jockeying for control over the story? Note the titillating
potential of characters that "light up" when they touch! Did this
create any visible titillation for embarrassment?
p. 283: I can sort of follow why stitching, knotting, and threading
might be gendered (a kind of washback from the world of work, I
suppose). Why gluing?
p. 289: Why does Amber refer to Antoine as "Nicholas"?
p. 293: The first sentence of the section "Hands-On Materials as
Gendered Access" refers to "two focal girls". Is this a mistake, or am
I missing somebody?
And my comment. It seems to me that a lot of studies (not this one in
particular but many studies of this type in general) tend to view
gendered access as a matter of gendered access to property or power or
both. But this is very often an adult view; we adults are obsessed
with power and property and we assume that it is only right that
children are. Isn't it possible that to the children what is really
gendered is access to aesthetic concepts versus access to technical
expertise? Both orientations address the tension between form and
material, but they address it from very different sides and are
ultimately indispensible to each other (which is notoriously not the
case with disputes over property and power). Note, however, that when
the teacher says that it is decorating that is the fun part, the
teacher is biasing the children towards the aesthetic and away from
the technical!)
David Kellogg
Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
On 24 October 2014 07:07, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> Aha! Thanks!
>
> So artificial literacies refers to the mediation of reading/writing by a
> variety of artifacts! Ok, that I can make sense of. And thanks for the RRQ
> ref on sedimented identities. This phrase is used in discussion of text
> production. For those ignorant like myself, here is the summary provided by
> the authors, which also makes the point of their text (and the present
> one!) cleared:
>
> *THE COMMENTARY argues for an understanding of how texts are put together
> that accounts for multimodality and draws on children’s ways of being and
> doing in the home, their habitus. It focuses on identities as socially
> situated. It argues that it is important to trace the process of
> sedimenting identities during text production. This offers a way of viewing
> text production that can inform research into children’s text making.
> Particular attention is paid to the producer, contexts, and practices used
> during text production and how the text becomes an artifact that holds
> important information about the meaning maker. Four case studies describe
> sedimented identities as a lens through which to see a more nuanced
> perspective on meaning making. This work offers a lens for research and
> practice in that it enables researchers to question and interrogate the way
> texts come into being.*
>
>
> mike
>
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Karen Wohlwend <kwohlwen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Certainly-- Rowsell and Pahl take an ethnographic approach to track the
>> practices and user identities involved in the production and previous uses
>> of an artifact.
>>
>> Rowsell, J., & Pahl, K. (2007). Sedimented identities in texts: Instances
>> of practice. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(3), 388-404.
>>
>> Pahl, K., & Rowsell, J. (2010). Artifactual literacies: Every object tells
>> a story. New York: Teachers College Press.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 12:56 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > Karen--- I am familiar of course with the notion of artifacts, but I am
>> not
>> > familiar with
>> > Rowsell and Pahl's sedimented identities and artifactual literacies.
>> Could
>> > you provide a link or a reference? The phrase has me wondering what a
>> > non-artifactual literacy would be.
>> > mike
>> >
>> > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 7:03 PM, Karen Wohlwend <kwohlwen@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Andy, thanks for these generative questions and comments! I'll defer to
>> > my
>> > > co-authors to situate the focal case in the larger study but I'll
>> address
>> > > how we are considering relationships among gender, practices, and
>> tools.
>> > >
>> > > We're conceptualizing tools as anchoring artifacts, that concretize and
>> > > suggest particular uses and users accrued from cultural histories of
>> > > access and use (following Holland and Cole's cultural artifacts, and
>> more
>> > > recently, Rowsell and Pahl's sedimented identities and artifactual
>> > > literacies). Tools index shared histories of use, values, and
>> > expectations
>> > > for who *should *be a user and for how practices *should *be conducted,
>> > > practices which following Paechter are situated in communities of
>> > gendered
>> > > practice that are multiple, local, and embodied.
>> > >
>> > > However, we would not say that a tool is gendered in any fixed or
>> > > deterministic way. In any given moment of activity, tools signal
>> multiple
>> > > histories in many nexus of practice (following Ron Scollon, the tacit
>> > > shared practices that members of a community expect of one another)
>> that
>> > > lead up to, enter in, and flow from that moment, in contradictory,
>> > > confounding, and complementary ways, hence the ambiguity you've
>> > mentioned.
>> > > How/whether social actors make use of particular histories in a
>> specific
>> > > context realizes foregrounds some histories while backgrounding
>> others--
>> > in
>> > > ways that can reproduce, contest, or blur prevailing expectations for
>> > > participation. In our analysis, we looked closely at the mediated
>> actions
>> > > in the handling of tools in the one nexus to understand in a very
>> > concrete
>> > > way how girls were able to gain and maintain control over
>> > > projects--contrary to histories and expectations for high levels of
>> tool
>> > > handling, participation, and trajectories of expertise for boys in
>> > > electronics activity.
>> > >
>> > > Looking closely at the mediated action in this transformative moment
>> > > reveals how changing the electronics tools from wires to needle and
>> > thread
>> > > changes the nexus, activating a powerful perception/expectation for
>> girls
>> > > as appropriate tool users by signalling histories of sewing practices
>> and
>> > > feminine communities of practice.
>> > >
>> > > In regard to other situations, looking closely at mediated actions,
>> > > material artifacts, and tacit expectations for participation in the
>> > > relevant nexus of practice will likely also reveal how materials relate
>> > to
>> > > stereotypical expectations, pointing to places ripe for rupture where
>> > > changing something small in the local activity (e.g., an action, a
>> tool,
>> > a
>> > > material) in dominant nexus of practice can signal a different kind of
>> > user
>> > > and potentially disrupt persistent and naturalized stereotypes.
>> > >
>> > > Looking forward to continuing the conversation,
>> > > Karen
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 7:08 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Kylie & co.,
>> > > > A fascinating study around a truly ingenious approach to the gendered
>> > > > division of labour - giving school kids E-textiles to construct an
>> > > > electronic device - total mixing up and confounding the gender
>> > > stereotypes
>> > > > about sewing and electronics, etc.
>> > > >
>> > > > Some of the results were quite startling. That the young boy should
>> not
>> > > > just abstain and demonstratively not pay attention, but pay active
>> and
>> > > > supportive attention to the girl making the circuit with her
>> > > > needle-and-thread - an admired female-typical stance one would have
>> > > thought
>> > > > a young male incapable of adopting with a female workmate. And that
>> the
>> > > > gender-inscription of the sewing tools over-rode the greater
>> experience
>> > > > that in this case the young boy had in using them, with the boy
>> > deferring
>> > > > to the less experienced girl in recognition of the
>> > gender-appropriateness
>> > > > of her "taking charge" with the needle-and-thread. This does cause
>> one
>> > to
>> > > > think a little deeper into how we might conceptualise such gendered
>> > > > behaviours.
>> > > >
>> > > > As you would know, MCA has a strong preference for qualitative
>> > research,
>> > > > and studies with small sample sizes are not generally a problem, but
>> so
>> > > > much seemed to hinge on the study of just *one* boy-girl team, that I
>> > am
>> > > > concerned about the capacity to generalise from such a base. There
>> were
>> > > > about 80 youth in the activity as a whole, so I can only hope and
>> > presume
>> > > > that observation of the other 78 kids in some way guided the work
>> > focused
>> > > > on just 2.
>> > > >
>> > > > I must say, the analysis of the video data is very sophisticated and
>> > > > productive and you are to be congratulated on this aspect of the
>> work.
>> > I
>> > > > see that you approach the gendering of the activities through the
>> idea
>> > of
>> > > > the various *tools* being gendered, rather than the *practices*
>> > > themselves.
>> > > > This is something that was really necessary for you to be able to
>> make
>> > > > these observations, because the gendering of the activities is
>> > ambiguous,
>> > > > but not it seems the gendering of the tools. Is this a result of the
>> > > study,
>> > > > or is it something you already knew or did you arrive at this by
>> logic?
>> > > >
>> > > > Do you see any other opportunities for confounding gender stereotypes
>> > in
>> > > > this way?
>> > > >
>> > > > And finally, does the experience of working in ambiguous, even
>> inverted
>> > > > gender-stereotyped activities like these have any outcome which
>> carries
>> > > > over into a world where the gender division of labour lacks
>> ambiguity?
>> > > >
>> > > > Andy
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > *Andy Blunden*
>> > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Kylie Peppler wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> Thanks Andy! We're excited to discuss with the community and would
>> > > >> welcome any comments/questions on this emerging line of research!
>> > > >> Kylie
>> > > >>
>> > > >> ---
>> > > >> Kylie A. Peppler
>> > > >> Assistant Professor of Learning Sciences
>> > > >> Indiana University | School of Education
>> > > >> 1900 E 10th Street | Eigenmann 528 | Bloomington | IN | 47406 |
>> > > >> 812.856.8381
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 10:52 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
>> > > >> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Here's the article for discussion Artin is introducing:
>> > > >> *Hands On, Hands Off: Gendered Access in Crafting and
>> Electronics
>> > > >> Practices*
>> > > >> Beth Buchholz, Kate Shively, Kylie Peppler, and Karen Wohlwend.
>> > > >> Indiana University.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> The Maker movement promotes hands-on making, including
>> crafts,
>> > > >> robotics, and computing. The movement’s potential to
>> transform
>> > > >> education rests in our ability to address notable gender
>> > > >> disparities, particularly in science, technology,
>> engineering,
>> > > and
>> > > >> mathematics fields. E-textiles - the first female-dominated
>> > > >> computing community - provide inspiration for overcoming
>> > > >> long-standing cultural divides in classrooms. Analysis of
>> > > >> children’s
>> > > >> use of e-textiles reveals that materials like needles,
>> fabric,
>> > > and
>> > > >> conductive thread rupture traditional gender scripts around
>> > > >> electronics and implicitly gives girls hands-on access and
>> > > >> leadership roles. This reconceptualization of cultural
>> divides
>> > as
>> > > >> sets of tacitly accepted practices rooted in gendered
>> histories
>> > > has
>> > > >> implications for reconceptualizing traditionally
>> male-dominated
>> > > >> areas of schooling.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Andy
>> > > >> (attached)
>> > > >> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > >> ------------
>> > > >> *Andy Blunden*
>> > > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>> > > >> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Goncu, Artin wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Dear All,
>> > > >>
>> > > >> We are writing to let you know that the most recent issue of
>> > > >> MCA is out.
>> > > >> One of the articles published in this issue and being
>> > > >> introduced here for
>> > > >> discussion in referenced below. The authors of the article
>> > > >> have kindly
>> > > >> agreed to lead the discussion, and they are on xmca with us
>> > > >> now. The free
>> > > >> access to the article is possible through the links below.
>> We
>> > > >> are looking
>> > > >> forward to hearing from you all. Best, ag
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Hands On, Hands Off: Gendered Access in Crafting
>> > > >> and Electronics Practices
>> > > >> Beth Buchholz, Kate Shively, Kylie Peppler, and Karen
>> Wohlwend
>> > > >>
>> > > >> www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/10749039.2014.939762
>> > > >> <http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/10749039.2014.939762>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10749039.2014.
>> > > >> 939762#.VEZ25Ra_4wI
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Artin Goncu, Ph.D
>> > > >> Co-editor, Mind, Culture, and Activity:An International
>> > Journal
>> > > >> Professor Emeritus,
>> > > >> University of Illinois at Chicago
>> > > >> College of Education M/C 147
>> > > >> 1040 W. Harrison St.
>> > > >> Chicago, IL 60607
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Karen Wohlwend, Associate Professor
>> > > Literacy, Culture, & Language Education
>> > > Indiana University
>> > > 201 N. Rose Avenue
>> > > Bloomington, IN 47405
>> > > Office: 812-856-8275
>> > > Fax: 812-856-8287
>> > > kwohlwen@indiana.edu
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal with a natural science with an
>> > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch.
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Karen Wohlwend, Associate Professor
>> Literacy, Culture, & Language Education
>> Indiana University
>> 201 N. Rose Avenue
>> Bloomington, IN 47405
>> Office: 812-856-8275
>> Fax: 812-856-8287
>> kwohlwen@indiana.edu
>>
>
>
>
> --
> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal with a natural science with an
> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch.
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list