The dialectics of agency in educational ethnography

Abstract

This paper outlines a dialectical conceptualization of children's agency for the purposes of multidisciplinary educational theory and practice. We will illuminate the following five contradictory but connected dimensions of children's agency, or the dialectics of agency, identified from recent theoretical debates: Agency as (1) enacted and imagined; (2) as situatively emergent and progressively developmental; (3) as dependence and separation; (4) as mastery and submission; and (5) as control and freedom. We examine and discuss these contradictions "at work" in an ethnographic early education case study. Our argument is that the children's struggles towards agency and adults' efforts and failures to support children in their struggles, can be conceptualized as a dialectical movement between the opposing poles of these contradictions. Our dialectical reading of both data and theory has helped us to highlight the challenges the practitioners face when supporting children's agency and the solutions they implement when doing so.

Children’s Agency: Opportunities and Constraints

“…In this study, we view agency as a complex and tension-filled phenomenon that may depend on other actors, institutional structures, morality and power relations (Gurdal and Sorbring 2018;Hohti and Karlsson 2012). We were inspired by studies that considered the dialectics, interdependencies and tensions that frame the realisation of agency (Gurdal and Sorbring 2018;Rainio and Hilppö 2017).…”

Ground, Warmth, and Light: Facilitating Conditions for Reflection and Transformative Dialogue

“…As stated above Malinen (2000) suggests that at the epistemic dimension the teacher student relationship is asymmetric while at the same time cautioning that the teacher has an ethical ISSN 2377-22632016 responsibility to be aware of their limitations (Malinen, 2000(Malinen, , 2003. Regarding some topics, the teacher may be an expert when compared to the student.…”

“…Thirdly, it reinforces our sense of belonging with those with whom we share assumptions. Consequently, reflecting on those very assumptions, entails the risk of alienation from that group as well as loss of assumed ISSN 2377-22632016 adequacy. Although we have theoretically separated these challenges to reflection into the psychological and social, in practice it is often difficult to fully disentangle the intra-subjective from their social origins.…”

“…Thus, while these dimension refer to individual functioning, they open up a conceptual bridge to understanding the role of the social in learning, as well. As a result we can investigate the transformative potential of ISSN 2377-22632016 dialogue.…”

“…Furthermore, while the teacher may be a theoretical expert on reflection, or even an expert in facilitating reflection, they may not be adept at their personal reflection. As the challenges to reflection are not to be overthrown but rather negotiated for the first time, every time (see Mälkki, 2011;Rainio & Hilppö, 2016), it is not possible for anyone to be perfect at the process of reflection. Personal familiarity with the process of reflection reveals that it not easy, automatic or unchallenging and thus can cultivate patience and a supportive presence to students embarking on that journey.…”