Elsevier

Developmental Review

Volume 50, Part A, December 2018, Pages 5-15
Developmental Review

The importance of understanding children’s lived experience

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2018.05.006Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Developmental research needs to focus more on children’s lived experience.

  • Sociocultural theory focuses on children’s participation in their everyday settings.

  • Developmental psychology has long tried to understand children’s lives in context.

  • Research needs to examine (not assume) generality across populations and situations.

  • Researchers need to study children’s development in the ecologies in which it occurs.

  • Children everywhere need to learn to navigate the distinct settings of their lives.

Abstract

We argue that the field of developmental research needs a course-correction, to focus more on describing the cultural paradigms of children’s lived experience — children’s participation in the settings of their lives. This is essential information for understanding child development. We describe a sociocultural theoretical perspective that focuses on children’s participation in the everyday practices and settings of their lives, and examine the field’s efforts over the past half-century to understand children’s lives in context. Several emphases are needed for the field to understand lived experience: It is crucial to examine (rather than assume) generality of findings across populations and situations; to interpret findings based on knowledge of children’s lives rather than researchers’ intuitions; and to study children’s development in the ecologies in which it occurs. We call for research on how children everywhere learn to navigate across and participate in the distinct cultural settings of their everyday lives.

Introduction

In this article we argue that the field of developmental research needs to focus more on understanding children’s lived experience and practices in the everyday settings of their lives, as participants in cultural communities. Children’s development occurs within and through their everyday experiences, which, for all children everywhere, are cultural experiences. It is important to understand the learning opportunities and the societal organization that are involved in what they know and do.

In developmental psychology, not much attention is given to studying children living their lives, in the places that they live their lives. Our stance is that the portfolio of our field needs a course-correction. To understand child development requires deepening and updating our understanding of what children are up to in their everyday lives, in the variety of cultural settings that they navigate. A key question that emerges is how they manage their navigation across settings.

Even for the cultural group that serves as the primary research sample and basis of most of what is in introductory developmental textbooks — the people and practices of middle-class, highly schooled communities — not much is known about their everyday lives. Middle-class children’s ways of life represent one (very interesting, though unusual) way for childhood to occur but even for middle-class children there are few studies of lived experience and cultural practices (with some exceptions, such as Arnold et al., 2017, Kusserow, 1999, Ochs and Kremer-Sadlik, 2013, Rogoff et al., 1993, Lareau, 2003, Whiting and Whiting, 1975).

The theoretical and empirical importance of understanding children’s everyday lives was illustrated by Bruner, in his 1983 autobiography, critiquing his own early language research:

Imagine dragging mothers and their year-olds... into a great, dazzling white laboratory building, ... leading them down corridors to a ‘natural’ playroom entered through an outer room crowded with video screens — and then asking them to play with a set of standard toys, etc! Well, that was how we started. ...

Communicative behavior — prelinguistic as well as linguistic — is very context sensitive and our Rube Goldberg laboratory setting doubtless produced a great deal of stilted talk and action.” (p. 166-7)

Eventually, when Bruner and his team moved to observing children’s everyday lives, they noticed the extent to which children and mothers were intent on getting things done with words and other communicative means.

We went native. We took portable cameras to the children’s homes and observed what they did when a psychologist was not imposing tasks on them. What was very soon plain was that mother and child were negotiating their respective intentions through communication: using whatever conventional means could be brought to bear and inventing conventions where none had yet been established....

The situations in which they were operating, moreover, were loaded with familiarity. Communication was linked to those familiar routines, those familiar settings. (p. 167)

Bruner’s move to observing everyday life led to his important work on how ‘language was being mastered for the uses to which it could be put’ (p. 167). By studying children’s everyday lives, he developed his well-known argument that language development builds on familiar formats such as greetings and book reading, together with fine-tuned responding, which scaffold children’s learning.

All theories of how children develop contain assumptions, hypotheses, and implications about children’s everyday lives (Dahl, 2017). All too often, implicit and explicit claims about childhood derive from untested intuitions, leaving major theoretical debates unresolved. Researchers’ or theorists’ intuitions about children’s everyday lives — likely based on their own cultural experience — are often assumed to be the ‘normal’ form of human childhood, compounding the problems of ignorance about children’s everyday lives.

We argue that developmental psychology needs to broaden the research portfolio to include more research that examines children’s lived experience, in company with other approaches such as laboratory and experimental studies. Research that directly studies children’s everyday lives needs to be more welcome in developmental psychology journals, as it makes a substantial contribution to understanding human development. This welcome seems to have shrunk across a few decades in developmental psychology journals.

In addition to the direct contributions to developmental psychology from research describing children’s lived experience, this information is important to individual researchers across this field. Developmental researchers need information about children’s everyday lives in order to design and interpret research of all sorts. For example, to design laboratory procedures and interviews that mean what the researchers think they mean and to interpret findings based on the realities of the participants requires a body of research revealing children’s lived experience.

A great deal of research on children’s lived experience is available in other fields, such as anthropology, sociology, the learning sciences, and communication. Greater interdisciplinary connection would benefit developmental psychologists. But we also want to urge developmental psychology to encourage research that examines children’s lived experience by going where children spend their time and noticing the circumstances in which they learn and develop, as well as by asking them and their companions questions that illuminate how the phenomena in which the field is interested take place in children’s everyday lives.

In what follows, we first describe a sociocultural theoretical perspective that focuses on children’s development in terms of their participation in the everyday practices and settings of their lives. Then we put our call for greater attention to children’s lived experience in the context of the field’s efforts over the past half-century to understand children’s lives in context. We argue for broadening the field’s portfolio of research by

examining (rather than assuming) generality of findings across situations and populations, interpreting findings based on knowledge of children’s lives rather than researchers’ intuitions, and studying child development in the ecologies in which it occurs.

We conclude with a brief discussion of an important new question that has emerged from research on children’s lived experience: How do children learn to navigate across the practices common to the distinct settings of their lives?

Section snippets

Children learn and develop through everyday participation in cultural practices: a theoretical perspective

There are a number of theoretical perspectives that focus on people’s lived experience, since the early work of Bartlett and of Barker and Wright and before. Our call for developmental psychology to pay more attention to children’s lived experience builds from a broad sociocultural/historical practice perspective, which posits that learning and development occur in the process of people’s participation in the activities and events of their cultural communities (Callanan and Valle, 2008, Cole,

Still working to integrate contextual and cultural aspects of children’s lives in the study of development

Our call for greater attention to children’s lived experience (which includes the “cultural nature of human development,” Rogoff, 2003) continues a discussion that heated up a half-century ago, about the importance of context (including cultural context) in understanding human psychology. In the meantime, some attempts have been made to examine human development more contextually (and culturally), and theoretical progress has been made in considering the relation of individuals and their

Generality across communities and across situations: an empirical matter

Developmental psychology’s ignorance of children’s everyday lives frequently leads to overgeneralization, based on the limited populations and situations that are sampled. This is apparent in the continued widespread lack of attention to cultural differences in research populations and in the continued overgeneralization from one cultural group to humans in general (e.g., Nielsen, Haun, Kärtner, & Legare, 2017).

This is the case despite decades of evidence of the unusualness of the usual samples

Theories based on knowledge of children’s lives rather than researchers’ intuitions

All theories of development need research on children’s everyday lives. Developmental theories inevitably make claims about everyday life because most of development takes place in everyday life. That is, all theories of how children develop contain ecological commitments (Dahl, 2017): assumptions, hypotheses, and implications about children’s experiences and activities in everyday life. Theories could be committed to saying that children lack certain experiences in everyday life, that they have

Situating child development in the ecologies in which it occurs

As in other sciences, the general principles of developmental psychology are bound to be contextually grounded -- describing people-in-activities/circumstances, not people separate from contexts. We argue for the importance of describing people’s lived experience holistically and ecologically as functioning processes, along with Vygotsky, 1987, Leont’ev, 1981, Dewey and Bentley, 1949, Gibson, 1979, and the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition (1983) before us.

The study of childhood

How do children navigate across the distinct ecologies of their lives?

Children’s learning to distinguish or apply the approaches that they have learned in one setting when they become involved in another setting is an important phenomenon that has become recognized based on studies of children’s lived experience. Skill in navigating across settings is especially clear and crucial for children whose home practices are distinct from the practices that are common in schools, such as children from communities in which schooling has not been prevalent. How do children

In sum

To understand child development requires psychology to attend closely to children’s lived experience. Studying children’s everyday lives entails attention to cultural similarities as well as differences among the different communities of the world. It is important even for understanding contemporary childhood practices in the middle-class European American communities that have for too long been treated as generic, normal ways of growing up, rather than fitting very interesting and specific

Acknowledgments

We are grateful for the conversations with our colleagues and students that have helped us develop the ideas of this article.

Preparation of the article was supported by the UCSC Foundation Professorship in Psychology (to BR).

References (79)

  • T. Callaghan et al.

    Synchrony in the onset of mental-state reasoning: Evidence from five cultures

    Psychological Science

    (2005)
  • M.M. Chouinard

    Children’s questions: A mechanism for cognitive development

    Monographs of the Society of Research in Child Development

    (2007)
  • M. Cole

    Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline

    (1996)
  • M. Cole et al.

    The cultural context of learning and thinking

    (1971)
  • M. Cole et al.

    Culture & thought

    (1974)
  • M. Correa-Chávez et al.

    Children’s attention to interactions directed to others: Guatemalan Mayan and European American patterns

    Developmental Psychology

    (2009)
  • W. Corsaro

    Friendship and peer culture in the early years

    (1985)
  • L.J. Cronbach

    Prudent aspirations for social inquiry

  • A. Dahl

    The developing social context of infant helping in two U.S. samples

    Child Development

    (2015)
  • A. Dahl

    Ecological commitments: Why developmental science needs naturalistic methods

    Child Development Perspectives

    (2017)
  • P.R. Dasen

    Piagetian psychology: Cross-cultural contributions

    (1977)
  • M.R.L. De Gracia et al.

    A cultural conundrum: Delayed false-belief understanding in Filipino children

    Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology

    (2016)
  • J. Dewey et al.

    Knowing and the known

    (1949)
  • E. Diener et al.

    Person X Situation interactions: Choice of situations and congruence response models

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1984)
  • A. Duranti

    Further reflections on reading other minds

    Anthropological Quarterly

    (2008)
  • M. Gauvain

    The social context of cognitive development

    (2001)
  • J.J. Gibson

    The ecological approach to visual perception

    (1979)
  • K.D. Gutiérrez

    Developing a sociocritical literacy in the Third Space

    Reading Research Quarterly.

    (2008)
  • K. Gutiérrez et al.

    Cultural ways of learning: Individual traits or repertoires of practice

    Educational Researcher

    (2003)
  • G. Hatano

    Cognitive consequences of practice in culture specific procedural skills

    Quarterly Newsletter of the Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition

    (1982)
  • J.T. Irvine

    Wolof “magical thinking”: Culture and conservation revisited

    Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology

    (1978)
  • A.S. Kusserow

    De-homogenizing American individualism: Socializing hard and soft individualism in Manhattan and Queens

    Ethos

    (1999)
  • Laboratory of Comparative Human Cognition. (1983). Culture and cognitive development. In W. Kessen (Ed.), History,...
  • A. Lareau

    Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life

    (2003)
  • J. Lave

    Tailor-made experiments and evaluating the intellectual consequences of apprenticeship training

    Quarterly Newsletter of the Institutte for Comparative Human Development

    (1977)
  • J. Lave

    Apprenticeship in critical ethnographic practice

    (2011)
  • J. Lave et al.

    Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation

    (1991)
  • Lebra, T.S. (1994). Mother and child in Japanese socialization: A Japan-U.S. comparison. In P.M. Greenfield & R.R....
  • Cited by (117)

    • Toddlers as active, competent story weavers: Lexie’s story

      2024, Journal of Early Childhood Literacy
    • Decolonizing and Diversifying Research in Cognitive Development

      2024, Journal of Cognition and Development
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text