[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: Gendered Access in Crafting and Electronics Practices



Thanks for this discussion! I can quickly address a couple of these
questions:

*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?* (p. 283):

Yes, youth did create stories for their puppets/characters. Kylie described
Antoine and Amber's characters' fascinating back story in a paper for AERA
last year: "One of the hand puppets was intended to be “reddit robot,” who
is the “mascot” of reddit.com, a web community where users vote on what's
new and popular online. In a storyboard that Amber and Antoine later
created around their puppets, reddit robot sets out to “make people lazyer”
[sic] by adding the music to the bewilderingly infectious Nyan Cat Internet
meme—the animated GIF of a flying cat with a pop-tart body that has
generated over 81 million views on YouTube since its appearance in Spring
2011. (The Nyan Cat was a top hit on reddit.com at the time of the
e-textiles workshop)."  (Peppler, 2013)

*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?*
 (p. 293)

Sorry that this is confusing to readers. This section moves away from Amber
and Antoine to consider broader patterns observed across *both *dyads
studied (see pp. 283-284 for frequency counts and other noted patterns
across both dyads). We qualitatively focused on one dyad in the article,
but data from *two* *mixed-gender dyads *informed the larger findings--thus
"two focal girls" [across both mixed-gender dyads]. Does this help?


--Beth Buchholz


On Fri, Oct 24, 2014 at 3:24 AM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
>
>


-- 
"Education is not preparation for  life; education is life itself." - John
Dewey

Beth A. Buchholz
Indiana University, Doctoral Student
Literacy, Culture, and Language Education
3048 Wright Education Building
(434) 227-9993